•.•■*' 


r   .         . .         . 


£1=. 

// 


OF   THE 
AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 

liox  a  *r  i  €>  iv     <j  w 

SAMUEL    AGNEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA.     PA. 


j)  ('use,    Divis.on 


© 


Shelf,  Section 3 


/o£S7 


U> 


a 


4  -ihrtfA  /^£&-r>a4  & 


t 


- 


N    *  ■  *    - 


«    + 


V 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/humbleattempttorOOgrif 


AN 
HUMBLE  ATTEMPT 

TO 

RECONCILE  THE  DIFFERENCES  OF  CHRISTIANS 

RESPECTING    THE 

EXTENT   OF   THE    ATONEMENT, 

BY   SHOWING    THAT   THE 

CONTROVERSY  WHICH  EXISTS  ON  THE  SUBJECT 

IS 

CHIEFLY  VERBAL. 

To  which  is  added  — — 


AN  APPENDIX, 


EXHIBITING 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  CHRIST'S  OBEDIENCE. 


BY  EDWARD  D.  GRIFFIN,  D.  D. 

Pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church  in  Newark,  New- Jersey. 


NEW-YORK  : 

PUBLISHED   BY   STEPHEN   DODGE- 
J.  Seymour,  printer. 


1819, 


B. 


Southern  District  of  New-York,  ss 


»R  it  remembered,  that  on  the  twenty-skth  day  of  Mare'i,  in  the  43d  vesr 
of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  \we  ka,  JONATHAN  SKY  ^OUR 
oft  tie  said  Uistr  ct,  hath  deposited  n  thic  office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  ri^ht  whete- 
of  he  claims  as  Proprietor,  in  the  words  fo'iowing,  to  wit: 

••  An  humble  attempt  to  reconcile  the  d{fftrences  of  Christians  respecting  the  extent 
of  the  Atonement,  by  showing  that  (n  controversy  which  exists  on  the  wbject  is 
chiefly  verbal      To  which  is  added  an  Appendix,  exhibiting    the    influen>  e    of 
ChrisVs  Obedience      By  Edward  D    Griffin   D    D    Pastor  of  the  Second  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  Newark,  New-Jersey. 
In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "  An 
Act  for  the  encouragement  of  Lt-arnin?.  t>y  securing  the   copies  of  Maps.  Charts, 
and  Rooks  to  the  authors  and  proprietor- of   such   copies,   during  the  *im<2  therein 
men'ioned:"     And  also  to  an  Act,  en'itled,     "An  Act,  supplementary  to  an  Act, 
enntled.  an    Act  for  the  encouragement  of   F.earn  112.  by  securing  the  copies  "f 
Maps  Charts,  and  Book    :o  the    avthors    and  proprietors    >fuch   copies,  during 
the  Mine-  therein  mentioned,  and  evtenling  the  beiiefis  thereof  to  the  arts  of  de- 
Bi^uiojf,  •neraving,  and  etching  historical  *nd  other  prints-  " 

JAMES  DIU. 
Clerk  of  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


CONTENTS. 


Pag?. 

Freface ■ ' 

Introduction •     9 

PART  I. 

NATURE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

CHAPTER    I. 

Atonement  merely  the  ground  of  release  from  the  curse 13 

CHAPTER    II. 

Influence  of  atonement  upon  divine  government 22 

CHAPTER    III. 

Matter  of  atonement 28 

CHAPTER    IV. 

Christ's  obedience  and  reward SQ 

CHAPTER    V. 

Atonement  not  reconciliation 74 

CHAPTER    VI. 

Meaning  of  righteousness  as  connected  with  the  justification  of 
believers 105 

CHAPTER   VII. 

Mistakes  arising  from  drawing  literal  conclusions  from  figurative 
premises. ,....., , >, . .:.•.•'.  .113 


IV  <K>MTENTS. 

Page. 
PART  II. 

EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Curse  of  abandonment  removed  from  all 173 

CHAPTER  II. 
Grand  point  of  division  between  the  parties 1 

CHAPTER  III. 
View  of  the  subject  as  taken  by  the  Synod  of  Dort 181 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Atonement  for  moral  agents  only 193 

CHAPTER   V. 

The  two  characters  of  man  distinct  and  independent  of  each  other.  196 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Nothing  belonged  to  the  atonement  but  what  was  public 213 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Attributes  of  moral  agents 219 

CHAPTER    VIII. 

A  moral  government ... .241 

CHAPTER    IX. 

Moral  agents  treated  as  if  there  was  no  foreknowledge    249 

CHAPTER    X. 

Moral  agents  treated  conditionally 253 

CHAPTER    XI. 
Believer  and  unbeliever  confounded  with  elect  and  non-elect,  and 
with  man  as  a  capable  agent 268 

CHAPTER    XII. 

Treatment  of  agents  by  itself  expresses  divine  benevolence 276 


CONTENTS.  V 

Page. 

CHAPTER    XIII. 

Purposes  of  the  Moral  Govemour  not  to  be  confounded  with  those 

of  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause 281 

CHAPTER   XIV. 
Treatment  of  individual  agents  intended  to  influence  agents  gene- 
rally  286 

CHAPTER   XV. 

Reasons  for  an  atonement  for  those  who  perish 292 

CHAPTER    XVI. 
Extent  of  the  provision  not  incidental  but  purposely  intended 298 

CHAPTER   XVII. 

Reprobation  and  the  order  of  divine  decrees 301 

CHAPTER    XVIII. 
Covenant  of  redemption 306 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Our  whole  meaning  at  one  view 308 

CHAPTER    XX. 

Eotiom  of  the  mistake  lies  in  overlooking  human  agency 313 

CHAPTER    XXI. 

Importance  of  correct  language  on  the  subject 320 

PART  III. 

SCRIPTURAL  VIEW. 

HAPTER   I. 

Plan  of  the  argument 327 

CHAPTER  II. 
Benefit  of  the  atonement  m:ide  over  r.c  all 331 

CHAPTER  III. 
All  men  bound  to  make  the  benefit  &e • « « .  .343 

A  2 


VI  CONTENTS,  • 

Page. 
CHAPTER    IV. 

Actual  influence  of  the  atonement  upon  all 354 

CHAPTER   V. 

Synod  of  Dort  agreed  with  us  as  to  the  actual  influence  of  the 
atonement  upon  the  non-elect,  and  the  purpose  cf  the  Sacred 
Persons 369 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Testimony  of  Calvin,  Watts,  and  others 373 

CHAPTER    VII. 
Atonement  offered  and  accepted  expressly  for  all 390 

Appendix  . , 405 


PREFACE. 


If  there  is  a  subject  within  the  whole  range  of  thought 
which  calls  for  the  application  of  our  best  powers  in  a 
course,  ( I  do  not  say  of  metaphysical,  but )  of  close  and 
patient  investigation,  it  is  the  work  of  redemption.  This 
stupendous  plan  gives  full  scope  to  the  higher  orders  of  in- 
tellect. "  Which  things  the  angels  desire  to  look  into." 
I  know  not  how  often,  in  tracing  the  following  pages,  these 
words  have  rushed  upon  my  mind  with  new  and  deep- 
er reasons  for  that  angelic  research.  So  many  are  the  rela- 
tions which  this  great  work  involves,  so  complicated  and 
various  its  influences,  so  connected  it  is  with  some  of  the 
abstrusest  questions  relative  to  the  nature  and  powers  of 
man,  that  the  more  it  is  studied  the  less  will  be  the  wonder 
that  the  best  instructed  angel  is  still  bending  forward  with 
prying  scrutiny  to  look  into  these  things. 

And  shall  the  children  of  a  day  think  that  they  have 
learned  enough  on  this  amazing  subject,  when  they  have 
gathered  a  few  scraps  of  knowledge, — half  a  dozen  gene- 
ral notions  respecting  the  mission  and  work  of  Christ, — 
without  any  definite  idea  of  the  end  of  his  atonement,  or 
the  purpose  which  his  righteousness  was  to  answer  in  the 
government  of  God  ?  How  many  alas  !  calculate  thus,  and 
content  themselves  with  knowledge  scarcely  sufficient  to 
support  a  general  faith.  This  is  the  besetting  sin  and 
danger  of  an  age  of  business.  Thus  men  will  not  reason 
when  they  see  the  Son  of  God  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and 
find  themselves  at  his  bar.  These  Christians  by  rote  ! 
how  much  of  the  real  glory  of  the  Gospel  do  they  lose  ;  how 
much  of  its  amazing  views  ;  how  much  of  its  sublime  con- 
solations ;  how  much  of  its  sanctifying  power.  And  to 
what  hazard  do  they  put  their  eternal  interests.     How  are 


$  PREFACE. 

they  to  know,  with  such  a  twilight  vision,  that  it  is  the  real 
Gospel  they  believe  ?  that  it  is  the  very  Christ  of  God  which 
fills  their  eye  ?  How,  unless  the  clear  and  distinguishing 
glory  of  Messiah  falls  upon  their  view,  are  their  selfish 
hearts  to  be  tested  ?  Many,  it  is  feared,  go  down  to  death 
from  our  communion  tables,  for  want  of  having  their  hearts 
revealed  and  their  hopes  destroyed  by  the  discriminating 
light  of  those  rays  which  beam  from  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

It  is  time  that  these  indolent  and  contracted  calculations 
were  broken  up.  It  is  time  that  men  discovered  that  the 
"  great  mystery  of  godliness"  presents  a  subject  for  more 
than  general  and  loose  reflections  ;  that  if  there  is  any  use 
for  their  immortal  powers,  it  is  on  this  vast  and  unfathom- 
able wonder  of  redemption. 

And  now  if  any  are  unwilling  to  harness  themselves  for  a 
conflict  with  indolence,  and  to  bring  their  minds  up  to  pa- 
tient and  elevated  thought,  let  them  close  the  book  here. 
But  if  they  have  entered  into  the  feelings  of  heaven,  and 
caught  a  desire  to  search  into  a  subject  which  a  thousand 
ages  of  study  will  not  exhaust,  let  them  offer  an  humble 
prayer  and  then  begin. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  author  of  the  following  sheets  has  long  believed 
that  the  controversy  existing  among  Calvinists  on  the 
extent  of  the  atonement,  is  little  more  than  a  dispute 
about  words,  and  might  be  terminated  in  a  manner 
satisfactory  to  both  parties  by  kind  and  candid  expla- 
nations. He  certainly  has  no  pretensions  to  any  un- 
common skill  or  influence  to  accomplish  so  desirable 
an  end ;  but  grieved  to  find,  on  his  return  from  a  con- 
flict with  men  of  a  far  different  spirit,  a  division  among 
brethren  who  are  natural  allies,  and  ought  to  be  united 
in  the  same  mind  and  judgment,  he  was  constrained  to 
©ffer  his  thoughts,  in  humble  hopes  of  persuading  the 
more  candid  on  both  sides  that  no  serious  difference 
exists  between  them. 

In  one  principle  both  parties  are  agreed  ;  that  our 
instructions  on  this  subject  are  to  be  drawn  from  the 
Scriptures  alone,  and  not  from  bold  and  presumptuous 
speculations.  Reason  has  only  to  kneel  and  ask  what 
the  Oracle  says.  Her  province  is  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  sacred  page  by  comparing  Scripture 
with  Scripture,  and  in  one  description  of  cases,  (but 
not  without  great  caution  and  humility,)  with  common 
sense.  The  test  of  common  sense  is  to  be  applied 
only  to  distinguish  between  the  figurative  and  literal 
meaning  of  texts  which  were  obviously  intended  to  be 


10  INTRODUCTION* 

subjected  to  such  a  scrutiny ;  as  for  instance,  those  which 
speak  of  God's  eyes,  and  hands,  and  feet,  of  his  repent- 
ing, of  his  fury's  coming  up  in  his  face,  and  the  like. 
The  right  of  applying  common  sense  in  this  descrip- 
tion of  cases,  is  a  great  Protestant  principle,  asserted 
by  all  the  Reformed  Churches  in  their  disputes  with 
the  Romanists  about  transubstantiation.  When  our  Sa- 
viour says,  "  This  is  my. body,"  and,  "  This  is  my 
blood,"  Protestants  affirm  that  his  language  is  figura- 
tive, because  a  literal  construction  would  be  an  out- 
rage to  common  sense.  In  like  manner  when  Christ 
and  believers  are  said  to  be  one,  common  sense  refu- 
ses actually  to  identify  them,  and  pronounces  the  lan- 
guage figurative ;  for  manifestly  Christ  is  not  li- 
terally one  with  believers  any  more  than  he  is  with  the 
bread  and  wine.  So  when  it  is  said  that  he  was  made 
"  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  common  sense  de- 
cides that  sin  and  righteousness  are  both  used  in  a 
figurative  sense  ;  for  Christ  was  not  literally  sin,  but 
was  only  treated  as  a  sinner;  and  we  are  not  literally 
righteousness,  but  are  only  treated  as  righteous*, 

A  considerable  part  of  the  dispute  has  arisen  from 
a  failure  thus  to  distinguish  between  the  figurative  and 
literal    meaning   of  texts.     But  there  are  two  other 

*  2  Cor.  5.  21.  The  first  clause  cannot  be  translated,  "  hath  made 
him  to  be  a  sin-offering,"  for  that  would  destroy  the  antithesis.  He 
was  made  sin  just  as  we  are  made  righteousness.  Both  words  are  figu- 
ratively used,  but  from  their  opposition  to  each  other  neither  can  be 
changed  without  destroying  the  point  of  the  sentence.  Besides,  the 
former  word  is  restricted  by  being  repeated  with  a  literal  meaning; 
*'  who  knew  no  sin."  The  order  of  the  words  in  the  original  is  this  : 
M  For  him  who  knew  no  ausl^tixv,  for  us  he  hath  .made  ctua%rrt*v ." 
A/un^Ttxv  must  not  be  rendered  sin  in  one  place  and  a  sin-offering  in 
another  in  the  same  clause  of  a  sentence. 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

points  of  difference  of  still  greater  influencej  one  re- 
specting the  nature,  the  other  the  objects  of  the  atone- 
ment. 

One  respects   the  nature.      We  mean  by  atonement 
nothing  more  than  that  which  is  the  ground  of  release 
from  the  curse,  and  we  separate  it  entirely  from  the  me- 
rit of  Christ,  or  his  claim  to  a  reward.  Our  brethren  com- 
prehend under  the  name,  not  only  what  we  understand 
by  expiation,  but  merit  also  with  all  its  claim.    And  if 
they  could  see  the  propriety  of  limiting  the  term  as  we 
do,  few  of  them  would  deny  our  conclusions.     In  their 
mouth   the  word  is  always  co-extensive  with  ransom, 
(Xur£ov,)  the   price  of  redemption,  (Xwgwtftf ))  and  the 
question  which  they  raise  is  about  particular  redemp- 
tion, on  which  there  really  is  no  dispute  ;  we  believing 
as  fully  as  they  do  that  redemption,  in   the  higher  and 
more  perfect  sense,    was   accomplished  only   for  the 
elect.     It  is  to  be  noticed  that  ransom,  and  words    of 
that  nature,  are  used  in  two  senses  in  the  New-Testa- 
ment:  first,  for  the   blood  of  Christ  hid  down  for  a 
moral  agent,  to  deliver  him  from  death  if  he  on   his 
part    will  accept  the  offer.     This  I  call    the    lower 
ransom,  and  it  is  exactly  what  we  mean  by  the  atone- 
ment.    Secondly,  for  expiation  and  merit  united.     A 
ransom  has  two  influences  ;  it  supports  the  claim  of  the 
redeemer,  and  it  is  that  out  of  respect  to  which  the 
holder  of  the  captives  lets  them  go.     According  to  this, 
the  ransom  of  Christ  inckdes  his  merit,  which  claim- 
ed the  rele»se  of  the  captives  as  his  reward,  and  his 
atonement,  out  of  respect  to  which,  as  the  honour  of 
the  law  was  concerned,  the  Father  consented  to  their 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

discharge.  This  I  call  the  higher  ransom,  and  its  abso- 
lute and  unfailing  influence  depends  on  tfie  claim  of  me- 
rit to  its  stipulated  recompense.  This  was  not  offered 
for  all ;  for  none  of  us  will  say  that  Christ  so  purchas- 
ed the  whole  race  by  the  merit  of  his  obedience,  that 
he  could  claim  them  all  as  his  promised  reward. 

The  second  point  respects  the  objects  of  the  atone- 
ment. We  consider  the  satisfaction  as  made  exclu- 
sively for  moral  agents  ;  our  brethren  speak  of  it  as  if 
it  was  made  for  mere  passive  subjects  of  regenerating  in- 
fluence, and  in  their  reasonings  they  overlook  moral 
agents.  In  which  character  men  were  really  contem- 
plated in  the  provision,  is  indeed  the  question  on  which 
the  controversy  chiefly  hinges.  If  it  was  made  for  moral 
agents,  it  might  be  made  for  those  who  were  never  to  be 
regenerated  ;  if  made  for  passive  receivers  of  sanctifying 
impressions,  it  was  made  only  for  those  who  are  ulti- 
mately new-born.  If  made  for  the  passive,  it  must  be 
absolute  ;  and  if  absolute,  the  event  shows  that  it  was 
not  made  for  all  :  if  made  for  moral  agents,  it  must  be 
conditional ;  and  if  conditional,  it  could  not  be  limited 
to  a  part. 

These  three  points  comprehend  the  whole  ground  of 
the  dispute.  If  the  parties  can  discriminate  with  the 
same  eyes  between  figurative  and  literal  language,  and 
especially  if  they  can  agree  to  separate  atonement  from 
merit,  and  can  be  of  one  mind  respecting  the  character 
in  which  men  were  contemplated  in  the  provision; 
there  will  no  longer  be  any  difference  even  in  words, 
sad  thus  this  unhappy  division  will  be  healed. 


PART  I. 

NATURE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ATONEMENT  MERELY  THE  GROUND  OF  RELEASE  FROM' 
THE  CURSE. 

Atonement  is  a  word  wholly  derived  from  the  Old 
Testament,  and  is  not  found  in  the  New  except  once 
by  mistake,  where  the  Greek  term  ought  to  have 
been  rendered  reconciliation*.  In  all  other  instances 
throughout  the  Bible  it  is  a  translation  from  the  He- 
brew 1DD.  By  this  then  its  meaning  must  be  limit- 
ed. No  Greek  word  of  the  New-Testament  can  be 
allowed  to  be  parallel  with  it  that  differs  from  *1Q5  in 
the  least  shade,  and  no  examination  of  other  terms  can 
throw  any  light  on  this  question  of  logomachy.  *1£0 
is  the  only  standard  by  which  the  meaning  of  the  Eng- 
lish word  must  be  controlled  and  fixed. 

Now  it  is  agreed  that  *13ID  signified  a  covering,  be- 
cause the  thing  denoted  was  a  cover  for  sin.  It  was 
never  used,  I  believe,  in  a  single  instance,  (by  what- 
ever word  translated,)  to  express  any  other  idea,  ex- 
cept when  applied  to  things  wholly  remote  from  the 
present  subject.  It  never  glanced  at  any  bearing  on 
our  positive  reward.  A  fair  specimen  of  its  u?e  may 
be  seen  in.  the  following  passages.     "  Moses  said  untc 

*  Rom.  5.  11, 


14  INFLUENCE  [PART  L. 

the  people,  ye  have  sinned  a  great  sin  ;  and  now  I  will 
go  up  unto  the  Lord,  peradventure  I  shall  make  an  atone- 
ment for  your  sin."  "  I  have  sworn  unto  the  house  of 
Eli  that  the  iniquity  of  Eli's  house  shall  not  be  purged, 
[covered,]  with  sacrifice  nor  offering  for  ever."  "  By 
this  therefore  shall  the  iniquity  of  Jacob  be  purged  ; 
and  this  is  all  the  fruit,  to  take  away  his  sin."  "  The 
wrath  of  a  king  is  as  messengers  of  death,  but  a  wise 
man  will  pacify  it."  "  1  will  appease  him  with  the  pre- 
sent that  goeth  before  me*."  The  typical  expiations 
denoted  by  the  word  were  generally  made  by  the 
n^Ofl  or  sin-offering,  and  sometimes  by  the  D£'N  or 
trespass-offering,  two  words  derived  from  roots  signi- 
fying a  sin  and  a  trespass,  and  the  former  root  some- 
times the  act  of  cleansing  by  a  sin-offering]. 

And  now  to  follow  these  shadows  into  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  the  Hebrew  wcrds  which  denoted  the  sin 
and  trespass-offering  are  translated  by  the  LXX,  (the 
former  repeatedly]:,  the  latter  once§,)  iXatf^og,  (and  its 
derivative  sgiXatfjAos,)  the  very  word  by  which  John 
twice  designates  the  great  propitiatory  sacrificed,  of- 
fered by  our  Hi^h-Priest  "  to  atone,  (iXatfxstfdcu,)  for  the 
sins  of  the  peopled."  The  atonement  of  the  New 
Testament,  then,  was  made  by  uan  offering  for  sin**," 
and  by  a  "  propitiation  for  our  sins,"  That  which 
was  accomplished  by  the  great  sin-offering,  answers 
exactly  to  the  ~l£3  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  that 
cover  for  sin  which  we  call  the  atonement. 

We  have  therefore  no  authority  to  call  any  part  of 
Christ's  influence  an  atonement  but  that  which  consti- 

*  Gen.  32  20.  Ex.  32.  30.    1  Sam.  3.  14.    Prov.  16.  14.    Is.  27.  9. 

Ea.  43.  22,  23. %  Ez-  ,3-  22>  23>  &  44«  27>  *  45-  18>  19" 

4  A  ios  8.  14.— Hi  ■  John  2-  2>  &  4'  10' ^  Heb'  2'  17, **  Is 

f&  10, 


GHAP  I 


.]  ON  MEX.  15 


tuted  the  cover  for  sin.  Whatever  other  influence  he 
had  must  be*  distinguished  by  a  different  name.  Other 
influences  he  certainly  had.  Other  influences  are  even 
ascribed  to  his  death.  But  his  death  comprehended 
not  only  an  atoning  sacrifice,  but  the  highest  merit  of 
obedience.  To  his  blood  our  justification"  is  once  as- 
cribed* ;  but  justification  in  that  passage  means  only 
pardon,  as  it  does  also  in  another  placet.  Sometimes 
the  sacred  writers,  taking  it  for  granted  that  more  is 
known  of  Christ  than  that  he  atoned,  pass  in  their  ra- 
pid course  from  his  expiation  to  the  life  which  comes 
through  him,  without  stopping  to  notice  any  interven- 
ing influence.  But  whatever  is  ascribed  to  his  death, 
whatever  to  his  blood,  whatever  to  him  as  the  iku£rr\giw 
or  mercy-seatf,  or  as  having  opened  a  way  to  the  mer- 
cy-seat by  the  rending  of  the  vail  of  his  flesh§,  still  the 
meaning  of  *15D  confines  the  atonement  to  the  cover 
for  sin. 

One  might  suppose  that  the  Synod  of  Dort,  that 
great  representative  of  the  Caivinistic  world,  had  the 
same  view.  They  every  where  speak  of  the  atone- 
ment as  made/or  sin.  and  talk  of  its  sufficiency,  (ad 
omnia  peccata  expiaada,  as  their  common  phrase  is,)  to 
expiate  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  And  this  is 
the  uniform  acceptation  of  the  word  in  common  con- 
versation, which  shows  the  general  impression  as  to 
its  original  meaning.  To  atone,  in  every  one's  mouth 
is  to  make  reparation  for  an  injury  or  amends  for  an 
offence. 

Now  to  cover  sin  is  a  figurative  expression,  and 
plainly  means  no  more  than  that  sin  is  so  far  hid  from 
view  that  it  is  not  to  be  punished.     Atonement  then  is 

*  Rom.  5.  9.—+  Acts  13.  39. %  Rom.  3.  25,  26. $  Heb. 

16,  19.  20. 


*t> 


.INFLUENCE  fl'ART 


.nerely  that  which  was  adapted  to  prevent  punishment, 
or  that  which  came  in  the  room  of  punishment  and  laid 
a  foundation  for  our  discharge  from  every  part  of  the 
curse.  It  reached  no  further,  and  had  no  bearing  on 
our  positive  reward.  This  was  left  to  another  influ- 
ence hereafter  to  be  considered. 

The  curse  of  the  law  consisted  of  two  parts,  aban- 
donment to  depravity  and  positive  misery.  That  the 
former  was  included  requires  some  proof.  The  law, 
Lsuppose,  had  doomed  mankind,  I  do  not  say  to  sin, 
(for  to  punish  sin  with  sin,  or  judicially  to  doom  agents 
co  act,  is  a  thing  unknown,)  but  to  the  everlasting  loss 
of  the  sanctifying  agency  of  God.  If  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  leaving  men  to  judicial  blindness  ;  if  in  anger 
God  abandons  sinners  "  unto  their  own  heart's  lust," 
to  walk  "  in  their  own  counsels,"  saying,  "  My  Spirit 
shall  not  always  strive  with  man  j"  if  for  their  iniqui- 
ties he  gives  "  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,"  say- 
ing, "  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their 
ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see  with 
their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand 
with  their  heart,  and  convert  and  be  healed* ;"  then 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  abandoning  sinners  by  way  of 
punishment.  And  how,  I  ask,  without  giving  them  up 
to  tormenting  passions,  could  there  be  such  a  hell  as 
the  divine  law  contemplates  ?  And  why  should  it  be 
thought  more  .inconsistent  to  withhold  the  Spirit  by 
way  of  punishment,  than  to  bestow  it,  (as  we  shall  see 
that  it  is  bestowed,)  by  way  of  reward  f  It  greatly 
supports  this  idea  that  the  mission  of  the  Spirit  was 
not  obtained  for  a  sinful  world  but  by  the  death  of  a 
Mediator.     "  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away  ; 

»  Con.  6.  3,  P?.  31.  U.  [s<  6.  ?—VZ    Rom.  1,  24—3  J 


CHAP.   I.J  ON    MEN.  17 

for  if  I  go  not  away  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto 
you,  but  if  I  depart  I  will  send  him  unto  you."  And 
when  he  "  ascended  on  high,"  among  other  "  gifts" 
"  received  for  men"  was  this,  "  that  the  Lord  God 
might  dwell  among  them  ;"  and  within  ten  days  he 
sent  the  blessing  forth*. 

These  were  the  two  parts  of  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
and  one  could  no  more  be  set  aside  without  an  atone- 
ment than  the  other.  But  the  cover  for  sin  removed 
or  rendered  removable  every  part  of  the  curse  which 
sin  had  incurred.  That  which  came  in  the  room  of 
our  whole  punishment,  took  away  thfe-curse  of  aban- 
donment, and  rendered  sin  pardonable  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  faith,  and  when  accepted  by  the  Father,  made 
remission  sure  to  believers.  Further  it  could  not  go, 
and  had  nothing  to  do  with  our  positive  reward!. 

*  Ps.  63.  18.  John  16.  7.  Acts  2. 

t  Some  have  thought  that  the  cover  for  sin  must  be  extended  so  fat 
as  to  include  a  foundation  for  our  reward,  by  cancelling,  not  only  the 
deb  Hum  pence,  (debt  of  punishment,)  but  the .  debitum  negligerdm,  (debt 
of  negligence.)  But  negligence,  after  taking  from  it  every  thing  which 
Reserves  punishment,  is  not  sin,  but  a  mere  defect,  and  therefore  is  not 
to  be  remedied  by  the  cover  for  sin.  It  is  said  that  sin  disabled  us  from 
gaining  a  legal  title  to  a  reward,  and  a  cover  for  sin  is  not  complete 
till  it  has  provided  for  restoring  the  title  by  grace.  But  it  was  not  sin 
that  produced  the  disability  which  remains  after  the  debt  of  punishment 
is  cancelled.  All  sin  is  then  covered,  but  even  then  we  have  not  a  per« 
feet  righteousness  from  the  beginning  to  show,  and  it  is  too  late  to  pro- 
duce one.  This  is  the  only  difficulty.  But  that  omission  of  obedience, 
you  say,  was  sin,  and  defrauded  God  of  his  rights,  and  drew  down  a 
sentence  of  disfranchisement,  cutting  us  off  from  ever  gaining  a  reward, 
The  omission  was  indeed  sin,  because  it  was  disobedience.  The  whole 
sin  lay  in  the  disobedience,  "for  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law." 
But  there  was  something  more  in  the  omission  than  sin,  there  was -a., 
defect ;  there  was  something  more  in  it  than  disobedience,  there  was 
the  want  of  obedience.  As  it  stood  related  to  the  rights  and  demands 
of  God,  it  was  positive  injury  and  disobedience  ;  as  it  stood  related  to 
the  promise,  it  was  a  mere  failure  to  produce  that  positive  good  to  which 

B  2 


fg  INFLUENCE  [FART  U- 

When  J  say  that  the  curse  of  abandonment  was  re- 
moved, I  do  not  mean  that  the  law  ceased  to  pronounce 
the  sentence  on  men.  The  law  never  ceases  to  pro- 
nounce any  part  of  its  sentence  against  those  who  have 
once  sinned,  even  after  they  are  pardoned.  But  what 
I  mean  is,  that  it  was  as  consistent  with  the  honour  of 
the  law  to  give  the  Spirit  to  men  as  though  the  curse  of 
abandonment  had  not  been  pronounced  or  incurred. 
It  was  not  indeed  consistent  with  the  highest  honour 
of  the  law  to  give  the  Spirit  to  men  till  the  merit  of 
Christ  was  introduced  to  make  the  gift  a  legal  reward 
to  him.     But  it  was  as  consistent  as  though  the  curse 

the  promise  was  made.  The  reward  was  promised,  not  to  the  absence 
of  sin,  but  to  positive  obedience  ;  and  the  mere  want  of  that  positive 
thing,  without  the  presence  of  sin,  is  enough  to  vitiate  our  title,  and  re«- 
mains  a  defect  after  all  sin,  even  the  sin  of  "  negligence,'1  is  covered. 
On  the  other  hand,  all  that  was  threatened  to  sin  was  punishment,  not 
the  loss  of  reward ;  that  followed  the  mere  want  of  obedience,  not  view- 
ed as  disobedience,  but  as  the  bare  absence  of  good.  There  was  no 
need  of  a  sentence  of  disfranchisement  to  cut  us  off  from  reward.  The 
mere  failure  to  render  that  to  which  the  promise  was  made,  without 
such  a  sentence,  was  enough  to  exclude  us.  If  I  promise  a  man  a  certain 
reward  for  a  day's  work,  and  he  comes  at  noon,  there  is  no  need  of  a 
punitive  sentence  to  vitiate  his  title  to  the  stipulated  recompense.  His 
mere  failure  cuts  him  off  without  involving  the  idea  of  punishment. 
You  say  the  cases  are  not  parallel,  because  his  failure  violated  no  ob- 
ligation. But  so  far  as  our  omission  violated  obligation,  it  was  sin,  it 
was  disobedience,  and  stands  related,  not  to  the  loss  of  reward,  but  to 
positive  punishment.  In  that  omission  there  are  two  things,  a  sin  and 
a  defect,— the  presence  of  that  which  entitles  to  punishment,  and  the 
absence  of  that  which  entitles  to  reward ;  and  when  all  the  sin  of  the 
amission  is  covered,  there  still  remains  a  defect  which  prevents  our  title 
to  a  recompense.  When  the  debitum  pence  is  cancelled  all  the  sin  of 
Jhe  omission  is  covered,  and  the  debitum  negligent  in  which  remains  must 
be  discharged  by  another  influence,  That  other  influence  is  the  merit 
o(  Christ's  obedience,  and  the  way  in  which  it  procured  our  positive 
good,  was  by  first  obtaining  it  as  a  legal  reward  to  himself.  As  cer- 
tainly then  as  we  spread  the  cover  for  sin  over  the  debitum  negligently 
and  make  it  the  foundation  of  our  reward,  we  put  merit,  and  not  mere- 
ty  the  testimony  of  obedience,  into  the  atonement. 


ckAP.  I.J  ON  ME*.  19 

had  not  been  pronounced.  The  curse  therefore  no 
longer  stood  in  the  way.  It  was  as  consistent  as  though 
there  had  been  no  sin.  But  after  sin  was  covered,  so 
far  as  it  stood  related  to  this  part  of  the  curse,  there 
still  remained  a  defect  of  positive  righteousness.  And 
it  was  the  principle  of  Eden,  as  will  appear  in  another 
place,  not  to  grant  the  Spirit,  after  man  had  had  an  op- 
portunity to  act,  but  in  approbation  of  a  righteousness 
perfect  for  the  time  the  subject  had  been  in  existence, 
and  not  to  grant  it  as  a  covenanted  reward  but  out  of 
respect  to  a  finished  righteousness.  After  sin  was 
covered,  the  Spirit  could  not  be  granted,  according  to 
that  original  principle,  but  out  of  respect  to  the  perfect 
righteousness  of  Christ.  The  cover  for  sin  was  not 
therefore  enough  to  open  the  way  for  the  mission  of 
the  Spirit.  All  that  it  could  do  was  to  remove  the  ob- 
struction which  sin  had  raised,  or  that  which  lay  in  the 
curse  of  abandonment,  but  not  that  which  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  defect.  This  is  what  I  mean  by  remov- 
ing the  curse  of  abandonment. 

This  part  of  the  curse  was  removed  without  the 
agency  of  man  as  a  prerequisite.  That  is,  the  obstruc- 
tion which  sin  had  raised  to  the  grant  of  regenerating 
influence  to  passive  receivers,  was  taken  away  without 
reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  same  creatures  as 
agents.  No  such  prerequisite  could  be  required  with- 
out preventing  the  removal  altogether,  because  the 
curse  must  be  taken  away,  and  regenerating  influence 
bestowed,  before  men  would  be  holy.  And  in  the  na- 
ture of  things  such  a  prerequisite  could  not  be  necessa- 
ry. After  such  a  death  to  support  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  the  influence  of  the  penalty  could  not  be  weaken- 
ed by  any  favour  shown  to  men,  unless  it  spread  a 
shield  over  irreclaimable  wickedness.     An  influence  to 


^U  INFLUENCE  [PART  I. 

turn  them  from  wickedness  could  not  abate  the  au- 
thority of  the  penalty.  The  atonement  therefore  ren- 
dered it  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law,  so  far 
as  the  influence  of  the  penalty  was  concerned,  to  be- 
stow regenerating  grace  on  men,  without  any  previous 
faith  or  repentance.  And  this  is  what  I  mean  by  re- 
moving the  curse  of  abandonment. 

It  was  not  so  with  the  other  part  of  the  penalty. 
This  could  not  be  removed  without  the  intervention  of 
human  agency.  For  to  have  applied  actual  remission 
to  those  who  should  persist  in  rebellion,  and  thus  to 
have  cast  the  shield  of  impunity  over  stubborn  trans- 
gressors, would  have  ruined  the  law  and  defeated  the 
very  end  of  the  atonement.  Pardon  then  could  not  be 
dispensed,  (to  those  who  hear  and  understand  the 
Gospel,)  without  the  existence  of  faith  ;  and  no  atone- 
ment could  absolutely  procure  pardon  which  did  not  as 
absolutely  procure  the  gift  of  faith.  Whether  the 
atonement  contained  all  that  influence  which  ensured 
actual  reconciliation,  depends  therefore  on  the  single 
question  whether  by  its  own  unaided  power  it  secured 
the  gift  of  faith.  That  some  influence  of  Christ  secur- 
ed this  gift  to  the  elect,  we  admit  and  earnestly  con- 
tend :  but  was  it  the  atonement  ? 

This  is  not  the  place  to  settle  a  question  of  this  sort, 
or  to  say  any  more  about  it  than  what  is  suggested  by 
the  name.  The  cover  for  sin  could  only  prevent  the 
evil  which  sin  deserved,  but  could  not  secure  positive 
good,  unless  the  mere  absence  of  sin  without  positive 
righteousness  could  secure  good.  How  then  could  it 
obtain  the  Spirit  ?  But  you  say,  it  could  not  cover  sin 
without  actual  pardon,  and  it  could  not  secure  pardon 
without  obtaining  the  gift  of  faith.  True,  nor  does  the 
name  determiue  whether  it  is  the  actual  cover  of  sin  or 


CHAB.  I.J  ON  MEN.  21 

only  a  cover for  sin.  A  cover  for  a  cask  is  still  called 
by  that  name  though  it  is  not  put  on,  and  has  an  actu- 
al and  complete  existence  without  being  used.  There 
may  be  a  cover  for  a  moral  agent,  which  at  the  risk  of 
an  awful  responsibility  he  still  rejects. 

This  leads  me  to  remark  that  if  the  atonement  was  a 
provision  for  moral  agents,  it  is  wrong  to  say  that  it 
was  made  only  for  believers.  Though  Christ  is  not 
a  mercy-seat,  (iXa^/ov,)  but  "  through  faith  in  his 
blood*,"  (cannot  otherwise  be  propitious,  or  render 
God  propitious,  to  those  who  approach  him,)  and 
though  the  atonement  was  to  be  applitd  only  to  believ- 
ers ;  yet  as  moral  agents  have  an  existence  indepen- 
dent of  their  character,  so  far  as  it  was  a  provision  for 
such,  it  was  prepared  for  them  while  yet  in  their  sins. 
In  this  sense  it  might  be  made  for  "  the  ungodly,"  for 
those  who  are  neither  "  righteous"  nor  "  good,"  but 
"  sinners"  and  "  enemies!." 

One  point  is  fixed  :  the  cover  for  sin  could  reach  no 
further  than  the  curse  which  sin  had  incurred,  and 
could  extend  no  influence  to  our  positive  reward,  un- 
less reward  follows  the  mere  absence  of  sin  without 
positive  righteousness.  It  is  this  limitation  of  the 
atonement,  every  where  conspicuous  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  has  given  rise  to  the  opinion  that  the  zuhole  in- 
fluence of  Christ  is  confined  to  pardon.  With  that 
thought  I  have  no  communion,  and  hope  to  show  in 
the  Appendix  that  his  merit  is  the  ground  of  all  our 
positive  happiness  ;  but  in  the  body  of  the  work  I 
have  nothing  to  do  with  any  thing  but  the  cover  for  sin* 

*  Rom,  3.  25..  t  Rom.  5.  6—10. 


22  INFLUENCE  [PART  I. 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  UPON  BIVINL 
GOVERNMENT. 

What  end  did  the  death  of  Christ  answer  as  an 
atoning  sacrifice  ?  It  opened  the  way  for  the  pardon  of 
believers.  But  why  could  not  believers  have  been 
pardoned  without  it  ?  How  did  it  open  the  way  ?  I  am 
not  answered  by  being  told  that  it  expressed  the  wis- 
dom and  benevolence  of  God.  Until  I  discover  some 
important  end  answered  by  it,  I  can  see  no  wisdom  or 
benevolence  in  it,  but  something  very  much  like  a 
waste  of  human  life.  What  was  that  end  ?  Do  you 
tell  me  that  the  eternal  principles  of  justice  required 
that  sin  should  be  punished  ?  But  sin  was  not  punish- 
ed ;  for  innocence  suffered  and  sin  escaped.  What 
end  was  answered  by  laying  this  affliction  on  the  inno- 
cent ?  Precisely  the  same,  as  respects  the  support  cf 
law,  that  would  have  been  answered  by  our  punish- 
ment. The  atonement,  we  have  seen,  was  a  cover  for 
sin, — was  adapted  so  to  bury  sin  from  view  that  it 
should  not  be  punished.  It  therefore  came  exactly  in 
the  room  of  punishment,  and  ought  to  answer  the  same 
end.  When  it  had  done  that,  it  had  removed  the  ne- 
cessity of  punishment,  and  constituted  a  complete  cover 
for  sin.  It  might  answer  that  purpose  more  fully,  but 
we  have  no  right  to  ascribe  to  it  any  other  end. 

What  end  then  does  punishment  answer  ?  The  same 
that  was  aimed  at  in  attaching  the  penalty  to  the  law, 
only  in  a  more  intense  degree.  And  what  was  that  ? 
The  support  of  the  authority  of  the  law.  Without  a 
penalty  the  law  is  nothing  more  than  a  summary  of  ad- 


CHAP.  IT.]  ON  LAW.  2& 

vice,  which  every  one  is  at  liberty  to  regard  or  neglect 
as  he  pleases.     Did  the  penalty   show  God's  attach- 
ment to  the  precept  ?  But  how  ?  By  being  set  to  guard 
the  precept,  or  to  give  authority  to  the  law.     In  this 
way  alone  it  revealed  any  thing  of  God.     Whatever  of 
him  was  shown  by  bringing  forward  a  sanction  to  sup- 
port the  authority  of  a  holy  and  benevolent  law.  and  no- 
thing more,  was  disclosed  by  the  penalty.     The  sole 
end  of  the  penalty  then  was  to  support  the  authority  of 
the  law,  and  to  discover  as  much  of  God  as  such  ari 
■expedient  for  such  a  purpose  could  reveal.     The  sup- 
port of  law  therefore   comprehended  all   other  ends, 
and  may  be  put  for  the  whole.     The  same  end  is  an- 
swered by  the  execution  of  the  penalty,  only  in  a 
higher  degree.     Without  the  execution  it  would  have 
been  the  same  as  though  no  penalty  had  existed.  The 
law  would  have  lost  its  authority,  the  reins  would  have 
been  thrown  upon  the  neck  of  every  passion,  anarchy, 
discord,  and  misery  would  have  ravaged  the  abodes  of 
being,  and  all  the  happiness  which  is  bottomed  on  holy 
order,  and  all  the  discoveries  of  God  which  are  made 
in  a  holy  and  vigorous  moral  government,  would  have 
been  lost.  This  unbounded  mischief  would  have  follow- 
ed a  prostration  of  the  authority  of  the  law  :  that  pros- 
tration would  have  followed  a  proclamation  of  impuni- 
ty to  transgression  :  and  this  proclamation  would  have 
been  implied  in  a  neglect  to  execute  the  penalty.  The 
only  way  to  prevent  this  infinite  mischief,  was  to  pro- 
claim and  prove  that  transgressors  should  be  punished. 
In  this  single  declaration  and  proof  the  whole  antidote 
lay.     For  whatever  else  of  God  was  proved,  if  it  did 
not  go  to  establish  this,  it  could  not  uphold  the  autho- 
rity of  the  law.     H  it  proved  that  he  was  holy,  or  just, 
or  good,  or  true,  or  wise,  or  attached  to  his  precept,  or 


24  INFLUENCE  [PART  I. 

all  these  together,  it  could  not  support  the  authority  of 
the  law  any  further  than  it  gave  evidence  that  trans- 
gressors should  be  punished.  Nothing  of  God  could 
be  expressed  by  punishment  but  what  is  contained  in 
the  single  proposition  that  he  does  and  will  support  his 
righteous  law  by  punishing  transgressors.  Did  it  ex- 
press his  holiness,  justice,  benevolence,  and  wisdom? 
But  how  ?  By  showing  his  determination  to  uphold  the 
authority  of  a  righteous  law  by  punishing  sin.  Besides 
furnishing  motives  to  obedience,  it  was  intended  to  set 
him  forth  as  the  object  of  confidence,  complacency, 
joy,  and  praise.  But  how  ?  By  showing  his  inflexible 
purpose  to  maintain  his  holy  and  benevolent  law  by 
adequate  punishments.  The  ultimate  end  of  govern- 
ment, as  of  all  other  things,  was  to  exhibit  the  glory 
of  God,  so  needful  to  the  happiness  of  his  kingdom, 
and  to  secure  to  him  that  treatment  which  was  his  due, 
and  in  which  the  blessedness  of  creatures  was  involv- 
ed. This  was  the  ultimate  end  of  punishment.  But 
before  it  could  answer  this  end  it  must  accomplish  an 
immediate  purpose  subservient  to  government  and  the 
dominion  of  holiness.  Before  it  could  express  the  ho- 
liness, justice,  benevolence,  or  wisdom  of  God,  or  hold 
him  up  as  an  object  of  confidence,  complacency,  joy, 
or  praise,  it  must  be  fitted  to  answer  an  important  end 
subservient  to  the  reign  of  holy  principles.  What  was 
that  end  ?  The  support  of  the  authority  of  a  righteous 
law  by  discovering  a  fixed  resolution  to  punish  trans- 
gressors. This  then  was  the  immediate  and  proper 
>end  of  punishment.  In  that  punishment  I  care  not  how 
much  of  God  you  suppose  to  be  revealed, — how  much 
attachment  to  his  law,  how  much  hatred  of  sin,  how 
much  justice,  or  even  truth  :  you  may  add  more  or  less 
'of  these  things;  but  the  whole  is  expressed  in  tho  sin- 


€HAP.  it;].  ON  LAW.  55 

gle  proposition  that  he  will  support  his  righteous  law 
by  punishing  sin.  To  give  proof  that  he  will  punish,  is 
certainly  disclosing  every  thing  of  God  which  punish- 
ment can  reveal.  The  end  of  punishment  then  in  any 
given  instance,  besides  pronouncing  the  subject  per- 
sonally ill-deserving,  and  being  an  exercise  of  justice 
in  that  particular  case,  is  merely  to  uphold  the  autho- 
rity of  the  law  by  revealing  God's  determination  to 
punish  transgression. 

Precisely  the  same  was  the  end  of  that  which  came 
in  the  room  of  punishment  and  answered  its  identical 
purpose.  In  whatever  the  atonement  consisted,  it  ex- 
pressed all  that  punishment  would  have  expressed,  ex- 
cept that  the  Sufferer  was  personally  a  sinner  ;  and  was 
all  that  punishment  would  have  been,  except  a  literal 
execution  of  justice.  This  it  could  not  be.  Justice 
never  required  the  personally  innocent  to  suffer,  but 
the  personally  guilty  ;  and  no  plan  of  substitution  or 
representation,  and  nothing  but  a  personal  identity  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  sinner,  rendering  him  personally 
a  transgressor,  could  make  out  an  act  of  literal  justice 
in  the  infliction  of  sufferings  on  him.  Equally  certain 
it  is  that  the  sufferings  did  not  pronounce  him  person- 
ally a  sinner.  These  two  uses  of  punishment  being 
separated  from  the  atonement,  the  only  end  remaining 
is,  the  support  of  the  law  by  showing  God's  determina- 
tion to  execute  its  penalty  on  transgressors.  This  was 
its  precise  and  only  end.  This  answered,  it  became 
an  expression  of  amazing  wisdom,  benevolence,  and 
mercy,  and  laid  a  foundation  for  the  most  luminous  dis- 
play of  all  the  divine  perfections  in  the  application  and 
progress  of  redemption.  But  before  it  could  do  this  it 
must  answer  an  end  properly  its  owqaftwhich  therefore 
is  to  be  considered  the  immediate  and  proper  end  of 
C 


36  INFLUENCE  [PART  I. 

the  atonement ;  and  that  was  what  has  already  been 
stated.  It  made  an  impression  on  the  universe,  stronger 
than  would  have  been  made  by  the  destruction  of  all 
Adam's  race,  that  God  was  determined,  notwithstand- 
ing his  mercy  to  men,  to  support  the  authority  of  his 
law  by  executing  its  penalty  on  transgressors.  How 
much  was  implied  in  this  declaration,  I  am  not  con- 
cerned to  inquire  ; — how  far  it  "  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh,"  how  far  it  pronounced  transgression  to  be  as 
hell-deserving  as  the  law  had  said,  how  far  it  asserted 
the  rectitude  of  the  divine  government  and  took  the 
part  of  the  Father  against  the  sins  of  the  world.  If  it 
answered  any  or  all  of  these  ends,  as  it  undoubtedly 
did,  it  was  by  giving  the  Father  an  opportunity  ta 
prove  to  the  universe  that  he  would  execute  his  law  on 
future  transgressors.  It  expressed  every  thing,  (ex- 
cept that  the  Sufferer  was  a  personal  sinner.)  that 
could  have  been  expressed  by  punishment,  or  that 
could  be  implied  in  a  determination  to  punish  the  fu- 
ture transgressors  of  a  holy  law.  In  the  expression 
of  punishment  or  a  determination  to  punish,  you  may 
comprehend  as  much  as  you  please  :  the  same  was  ex- 
pressed by  the  atonement.  Say  that  punishment  or  a 
determination  to  punish  proves  that  God  is  just,  and 
attached  to  his  law,  and  believes  it  good,  and  is  like  it 
himself,  and  hates  sin,  and  if  you  please,  is  a  Being  of 
truth  ;  then  all  these  were  expressed  in  that  single  de- 
claration of  the  atonement  that  he  would  punish  sin. 
Every  thing  of  God  which  punishment  could  reveal, 
was  disclosed  by  an  atonement  which  proved  that  he 
would  punish.  Every  end  which  punishment  could 
answer,  (except  a  literal  execution  of  justice,  and  an 
implication  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  the  sufferer,)  was 
accomplished  by  an  atonement  wnich  proved  that  God 


€HAP.  II.]  ON  LAW.  27 

would  punish.  The  whole  use  then  of  an  atonement 
which  was  to  answer  the  exact  purpose  of  punishment, 
was  to  show  that  God  was  determined  to  support  his 
holy  law  by  punishing  sin. 

Let  me  illustrate  the  operation  of  this  august  mea- 
sure by  the  following  case.  The  bank  of  England  is 
essential  to  the  prosperity  of  the  nation.  The  law 
against  forgery,  with  its  penalty  of  death,  is  essential 
to  the  existence  of  the  bank.  Ten  noblemen  are  found 
counterfeiting  the  notes  of  that  institution.  What  is  to 
be  done  ?  If  the  law  is  not  executed  every  one  will 
conclude  that  he  may  counterfeit  with  impunity,  and 
the  bank  and  the  nation  are  lost.  They  must  die.  In 
this  state  of  things  the  prince  of  Wales  comes  forward 
and  offers  to  die  in  their  stead.  The  offer  is  accepted, 
and  on  a  conspicuous  hill  in  full  view  of  the  assembled 
nation  he  is  executed.  What  impression  is  made  on 
the  multitude  ?  Do  they  now  conclude  that  people  may 
counterfeit  with  impunity,  because  they  see  the  peni- 
tent noblemen  pardoned  ?  No,  they  are  more  deeply- 
impressed  with  the  inflexible  resolution  of  government 
to  punish  forgery,  than  though  half  a  nation  of  coun- 
terfeiters had  died.  This  is  the  point  gained.  The 
law  is  raised  to  the  highest  pitch  of  authority  by  the 
strongest  possible  proof  that  its  penalty  will  in  future 
be  executed. 

In  giving  this  proof,  for  such  a  purpose  and  at  such 
a  price,  the  government  showed  their  attachment  to 
the  law,  their  abhorrence  of  forgery,  and  their  deter- 
mination to  be  just  in  the  future  infliction  of  punish- 
ment, though  justice  in  that  instance  did  not  literally 
take  its  course.  But  they  showed  these  things  through 
no  other  medium  than  a  fixed  resolution  at  all  events 
to  execute  the  penalty  of  the  law.  In  the  discovery  of 
this  single  purpose  the  whole  expression  was  involved. 


28  MATTER   OF  [PART  I. 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE    MATTER    OF    ATONEMENT. 

In  examining  this  subject  it  is  necessary  to  keep 
immoveably  before  the  eye  the  end  which  an  atone- 
ment was  intended  to  answer  in  the  government  of 
God.  It  was  the  same  that  would  have  been  answer- 
ed by  punishment.  And  what  was  that  ?  To  furnish 
practical  proof  that  God  would  support  the  authority 
of  his  law  by  executing  its  penalty  on  transgressors. 
When  that  proof  was  given,  and  the  end  of  punish- 
ment was  thus  answered,  the  Protector  of  the  law7  wras 
satisfied.  The  thing  which  produced  that  satisfaction, 
was  the  atonement  or  cover  for  sin.  When  I  ask  after 
the  matter  of  the  atonement,  I  ask  what  that  thing  was. 
What  was  that  by  wrhich  the  Protector  of  the  law  fur- 
nished the  same  practical  proof  of  his  resolution  to 
execute  the  penalty,  that  he  would  have  given  by  pu- 
nishment itself?  My  general  answer  is,  it  was  humili- 
ation imposed  and  sufferings  inflicted  by  his  own  autho- 
rity and  hand  on  his  beloved  Son.  What  could  so  na- 
turally show  that  God  would  inflict  evil  for  sin,  as  the 
actual  infliction  of  evil  on  account  of  sin  ?  as  the  to- 
kens of  wrath  discharged  against  the  Son  of  his  love 
standing  avowedly  in  the  place  of  sinners  ? 

The  law,  as  it  stood  related  to  transgressors,  had 
two  parts,  precept  and  penalty.  As  it  stood  related 
to  those  who  had  not  sinned,  it  had  also  a  reward  for 
obedience,  and  I  add,  for  nothing  but  obedience.  Ac- 
cordingly the  task  devolved  on  him  who  took  the  sin- 
ner's place,  consisted  of  two  parts ;  obedience  which 
stood  related  to  the  precept,  and  sufferings  which  came. 


CHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  29 

in  the  room  of  the  penalty.  By  obedience  also,  and 
nothing  but  obedience,  he  obtained  a  reward  in  which 
his  people  were  to  share.  In  accordance  with  all  this 
our  salvation  consists  of  two  parts  ;  a  release  from  the 
penalty,  and  a  participation  of  the  positive  good  in- 
volved in  Christ's  reward.  Here  then  in  one  line 
were  the  penalty  of  the  law,  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
which  came  in  its  room,  and  our  release  from  the  pe- 
nalty as  the  consequence.  Here  also  in  another  line, 
were  the  precept  of  the  law  with  the  reward  of  obe- 
dience annexed,  the  obedience  of  Christ  with  the  re- 
ward which  followed,  and  our  admission  to  the  posi- 
tive good  involved  in  that  reward.  All  this  appears 
plain  and  natural.  The  sufferings  and  obedience  of 
Christ,  two  parts  inseparable  in  fact  but  separable  in 
influence,  constituted  one  whole.  That  was  followed 
by  another  whole,  to  wit  our  salvation,  consisting  of 
two  parts,  equally  inseparable  in  fact  but  separable  in 
contemplation,  viz.  deliverance  from  hell  and  elevation 
to  heaven.  Now  what  I  assert  is,  that  the  appropri- 
ate influence  of  one  part  of  the  first  whole  stood  rela- 
ted to  one  part  of  the  second  whole,  and  that  the  ap- 
propriate influence  of  the  other  part  of  the  first  whole 
stood  related  to  the  other  part  of  the  second  whole ; 
in  plain  language,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  came  in 
the  room  of  our  sufferings,  and  his  merit  in  the  room 
of  our  merit ;  that  by  one  he  lifted  us  from  hell  to 
earth,  by  the  other  he  raised  us  from  earth  to  hea- 
ven. 

There  is  a  distinction  to  be  set  up  here  between  the 
matter  of  atonement  and  the  making  of  atonement. 
The  matter  of  atonement  was  the  thing  which  satisfied, 
the  making  of  atonement  was  the  presenting  of  that 
thing.     When  Aaron  offered  an  expiating  victim  he 

C  2 


30  MATTER  GF  [PART  I. 

was  said  to  make  atonement,  though  the  atoning  power 
did  not  lie  in  Aaron's  arm,  but  in  the  bleeding  lamb ; 
and  though  Aaron's  action  could  have  no  other  effect 
than  to  present  the  victim  to  God  according  to  his  ap- 
pointment, in  other  words,  to  bring  it,  with  whatever 
power  it  had,  into  the  necessary  relation  to  God.  Ac- 
cording to  the  same  form  of  expression,  the  Priest  of 
the  New-Testament  is  said  "  to  atone  for  the  sins  of 
the  people,"  and  "  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself*."  The  same  form  of  expression  is  used 
whenever  we  speak  of  Christ's  making  atonement. 
And  it  is  common  also  in  other  matters.  It  is  medi- 
cine, and  not  the  act  of  the  physician,  which  works  the 
cure.  But  it  must  be  administered,  and  administered 
in  a  right  way.  And  when  this  is  done  we  commonly 
say,  the  physician  healed  the  patient.  So  it  was  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  and  not  his  action  which  satisfied  : 
but  they  must  be  presented  by  the  Priest,  and  present- 
ed in  a  right  way,  that  is,  unmixed  with  any  disobedi- 
ence in  his  life  :  and  when  all  this  is  done  we  very 
properly  say  that  Christ  made  atonement ;  not  only  as- 
cribing to  him  the  effect  of  his  sufferings,  but  referring 
to  his  act  in  presenting  them.  The  obedience  ofj 
Christ  was  necessary  to  atonement  in  the  two  follow- 
ing respects. 

(I.)  To  render  him,  in  typical  language,  a  Lamb 
7oithont  blemish.  In  plain  language,  his  general  obe- 
dience, (and  of  course  his  general  subjection  to  law,) 
was  necessary  to  set  him  forth  as  the  .beloved  Son,  and 
thus  to  render  his  sufferings  sufficiently  expressive  of 
God's  inflexible  resolution  to  punish  sin.  He  must  be 
infinitely  dear  to  God  to  give  his  sufferings  this  full  ex- 
pression.    Pie  must  be  the  Son,  and  the  well  beloved 

*  Hcb.  2.  17.  and  9.  26. 


GHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  31 

Son,  to  be  thus  dear.  He  must  be  subject  and  obe- 
dient during  his  probation,  to  be,  in  the  eyes  both  of 
God  and  man,  the  well  beloved  Son  ;  for  obedience  con- 
stituted as  essential  a  part  of  the  filial  relation  during 
his  minority,  as  inheritance  does  since  he  has  come  of 
age.  There  being  but  one  Lawgiver,  and  essentially 
but  one  law,  this  subjection  of  the  Son  placed  him 
completely  under  the  law  given  to  other  creatures. 
And  when  he  was  under  law,  he  was  not  only  bound 
by  the  precept,  but  liable  to  the  penalty  in  case  of  dis- 
obedience. And  now  his  general  obedience  became 
still  more  necessary  to  qualify  him  to  make  atonement, 
as  in  case  of  disobedience,  so  far  from  being  able  to 
expiate  for  the  sins  of  others,  he  must  have  suffered 
for  his  own.  Obedience  in  this  view  went  merely  to 
qualify  his  sufferings. 

(-2.)  The  act  of  the  Priest  in  presenting  the  Victim 
must  necessarily  be  an  act  of  obedience.  The  Father 
must  command  him  to  die,  or  the  stroke  would  not  have 
come  from  his  own  hand*.  But  the  infliction  must  be 
made  by  the  very  Magistrate  who  is  thereby  to  show 
that  he  will  punish  others.  At  his  command  the  Vic- 
tim must  be  bound,  at  his  word  the  stroke  must  be 
given,  and  under  his  authority  and  hand  the  Substitute 
must  die.  But  in  no  way  could  the  stroke  be  inflicted 
by  divine  authority,  but  either  by  being  obediently 
submitted  to,  or  by  being  forced  by  main  strength  up- 
on one  struggling  against  the  authority ;  in  which  lat- 
ter case  the  sufferings  would  have  been  personally  de- 


*  Compulsion,  before  the  Son  was  subject  to  law,  would  neither  have 
been  possible  nor  just.  And  after- he  became  subject,  with  a  perfect 
willingness  to  die,  there  was  no  way  to  control  him  which  was  necessa- 
ry, or  proper,  or  suited  to  display  him  as  the  obedient  Son,  but  through 
the  medium  of  his  wllh 


32  MATTER  OP  [PART  I. 

served,  and  could  no  more  have  atoned  than  the  pains 
of  the  damned.  The  necessity  of  the  command  ap- 
pears in  another  point  of  view.  The  satisfaction  must 
be  rendered  to  One  holding  the  authority  of  the  God- 
head, and  of  course  by  One  not  on  the  throne,  and 
therefore,  as  the  throne  of  God  must  reign  over  all  be- 
neath it,  by  One  under  law :  and  when  he  was  under 
law,  he  had  no  right  to  die  uncommanded.  A  mere 
consent  of  the  Father  in  such  a  case  was  impossible. 
There  is  no  indifference  in  God,  especially  in  matters 
of  so  much  importance  ;  and  a  distinct  expression  of 
his  will,  however  mild  in  form,  must  have  had  all  the 
authority  of  a  command. 

Accordingly  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  the  whole 
appointment  to  the  priestly  office  came  from  the  throne. 
~ti  No  man  taketh  this  honour  unto  himself,  but  he  that 
is  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron.  So  also  Christ  glori- 
fied not  himself  to  be  made  a  high  priest,  but  he  that 
said  unto  him,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  be- 
gotten thee* ;"  alluding  to  the  subjection  which  goes 
into  the  very  idea  of  sonship.  The  same  Scriptures 
teach  us  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  obedience  ;  (or 
rather  I  will  say,  that  his  consent  to  die  was  such  ;  for 
we  cannot  ascribe  obedience  to  mere  passivity  or  suf- 
fering, it  being  in  its  very  nature  active,  and  always 
consisting  in  some  act  of  the  mind,  terminating  there, 
or  producing  some  act  of  body,  or  preventing  some  act 
of  body  or  mind.)  "  This  commandment  have  I  re- 
ceived of  my  Father."  "  As  the  Father  gave  me  com- 
mandment, even  so  I  do."  "  Lo  I  come  to  do  thy 
will,  O  God  : — by  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified 
through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once 
for  all."     He  "  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant." 

*  Heb.  5.  4, 5. 


GHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  33 

and  "  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of 
the  cross*."  By  this  command  on  the  one  part  and 
obedience  on  the  other  the  Father  appeared  demand- 
ing satisfaction,  and  laying  on  the  stroke  with  his  own 
han'd.  "  It  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him."  "  The 
Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all,"  saying, 
?t  Awake,  O  sword,  against — my  Fellow"!"." 

The  whole  influence  of  this  act  of  the  Son  lay  in  its 
being  an  exercise  of  obedience.  It  was  not  merely  a 
consent  to  die  after  being  commanded,  but  as  one 
commanded ;  a  consent  to  be  dragged  to  execution 
as  a  culprit  by  divine  authority,  that  the  stroke 
might  come  from  him  who  was  wont  to  act  as  the 
legal  Executioner.  The  whole  efficacy  of  the  act 
was  the  pure  efficacy  of  obedience,  not  as  a  merit, 
nor  as  a  testimony,  but  as  mere  submission  to  divine 
authority.  Had  it  not  been  obedience,  the  sufferings 
would  have  been  of  no  validity,  for  they  would  not 
have  been  exacted  by  the  supreme  Magistrate  from 
the  beloved  Son,  nor  have  been  any  evidence  that  he 
would  punish  others.  The  whole  effect  of  the  act  was 
to  bring  the  sufferings  into  a  proper  relation  to  God 
by  drawing  out  the  stroke  from  his  own  hand. 

This  discloses  the  very  influence  of  what  was  set 
forth  by  the  action  of  the  priest  under  the  old  dispen- 
sation. To  draw  my  language  from  that  type,  it  was 
necessary  that  the  divine  Victim  should  be  offered  by 
God's  appointed  Priest,  and  according  to  his  command 
and  direction.  The  action  of  the  Priest,  when  stript 
of  its  figurative  garb,  was  the  mere  yielding  of  sufferings 
to  the  demand  of  the  supreme  Magistrate.  What  did  the 
action  of  the  ancient  priests  express  ?  Merely  that  the 

*  John  10.  18.  &  14.  31.  Phil.  2.  8.  fleb.  10,  9, 10.— t  Is.  53.  8, 
10.  Zech.  13.  7. 


34  MATTER  OP  [PART  I. 

victim  was  offered  to  God  according  to  his  direction. 
And  what  did  the  obedient  consent  of  our  High  Priest 
express  ?  Merely  that  the  Victim  was  offered  to  God 
agreeably  to  his  appointment.  The  whole  need  of  this 
pontifical  act  was  the  need  which  existed  that  the  suf- 
ferings should  be  inflicted  by  the  Father's  authority  and 
hand. 

These  two  operations  of  obedience  had  the  exact  ef- 
fect to  secure  the  infliction  of  sufferings  on  the  beloved 
Son  by  the  Father's  hand.  One  qualified  the  Sufferer  by 
rendering  him  dear  to  the  Father,  the  other  brought  his 
sufferings  into  the  necessary  relation  to  God.  Now 
did  obedience  enter  into  the  matter  of  the  atonement 
by  answering  either  of  these  purposes  ?  But  other 
things  answered  these  purposes  which  were  never  put 
into  the  matter  of  the  atonement. 

(1.)  There  were  other  things  which  constituted  the 
personal  qualifications  of  the  Sufferer,  which  were 
never  put  into  the  matter  of  the  atonement.  These 
were,  first,  infinite  dignity,  necessary  to  render  him 
infinitely  dear  and  of  infinite  value  in  the  sight  of  God  : 
secondly,  a  passible  nature,  rendering  his  sufferings 
possible :  thirdly,  humanity,  instead  of  the  angelic 
nature,  that  he  might  have  a  life  to  lose  without  being 
annihilated ;  that  he  might  suffer  in  the  very  nature 
which  was  polluted  with  sin,  and  endure  the  very 
death  which  transgression  had  brought  upon  the  race. 
It  was  necessary  for  him  to  be  a  man  for  other  rea- 
sons. If  his  obedience  must  be  familiarly  exhibited 
before  the  world  to  set  him  forth  as  the  beloved  Son 
of  God,  he  must  obey  the  law  which  men  were  accus- 
tomed to  contemplate  ;  his  obedience  must  be  expres- 
sed by  actions  common  to  them,  and  under  circumstances 
trying  to  feelings  belonging  to  their  nature.     He  must 


CHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  35 

of  course  be  bound  by  the  particular  law  given  to 
man ;  and  this  he  could  not  be  without  being  a  man. 
For  instance,  he  could  not  be  bound  to  deny  his  bodily 
appetites  if  he  had  not  a  body.  He  could  not  be  laid 
under  obligation  by  the  seventh  commandment  in  par- 
ticular, if  he  did  not  possess  such  appetites  as  are 
common  to  men*.  There  was  another  reason  which 
does  not  belong  to  the  present  subject.  He  must  have 
all  the  sensibilities  and  trials  of  our  nature,  that  he 
might  become  an  object  of  easy,  familiar,  and  affec- 
tionate confidence,  as  One  who  had  learned  from  ex- 
perience to  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmi- 
ties!. 

But  we  do  not  put  into  the  matter  of  atonement  the 
passible  nature  and  humanity  of  Christ,  though  they 
were  necessary  qualifications  to  fit  him  to  make  expia- 
tion ;  nor  yet  his  dignity,  though  that  was  necessary 
for  much  the  same  reason  that  his  general  obedience 
was.  Why  then  should  his  obedience  be  thus  distin- 
guished ? 

Supposing  the  interest  which  he  had  in  the  Fathers 
heart  had  not  been  founded  on  his  holy  and  obedient 
character,  but  on  such  natural  affections  as  exist  in 
men  5  should  we  then  put  his  influence  as  a  Son  into 
the  matter  of  atonement  ?  Suppose  your  son,  who  has 
no  hold  of  your  heart  but  what  nature  gave  him,  should 
undertake  to  suffer  under  your  authority  for  a  rebel- 
lious servant.  Your  affection  for  him  makes  his  suf- 
ferings expressive  and  convincing  to  the  servants  of 
your  firm  resolution  to  support  the  authority  of  your 

*  I  do  not  take  into  consideration  the  necessity  of  his  honouring  by- 
obedience  the  same  law  which  men  had  refused  to  obey.  That  was  a 
matter  which  bore  relation,  to  his  reward, 

f  Heb,  2.  14—18, 


36  MATTER  OF  [PART  I. 

laws.  That  practical  proof  of  your  resolution  is  what 
satisfies  you  as  guardian  of  the  domestic  code.  The 
means  of  that  satisfaction  is  the  matter  of  atonement  in 
the  case.  Was  his  influence  upon  your  heart  any  part 
of  that  which  satisfied  ?  No,  it  only  enabled  his  suffer- 
ings to  discharge  that  office. 

(2.)  There  were  other  things  which  affected  the  re- 
latioyis  of  his  sufferings  which  were  never  put  into  the 
matter  of  atonement.  First,  the  voluntary  consent  of 
the  Second  Person  to  come  under  the  obligation  of  a 
command  to  die.  This  was  necessary  to  render  the 
command  just,  and  thus  to  place  the  sufferings  in  a 
proper  relation  to  God  and  his  law  ;  as  otherwise  they 
would  have  been  the  sufferings  of  a  martyr,  (allowing 
the  infliction  of  them  to  have  been  possible,)  and  in- 
stead of  showing  that  God  would  punish  transgressors, 
would  only  have  proved  that  he  would  oppress  the  in- 
nocent*. But  certainly  we  cannot  put  into  the  atone- 
ment an  act  performed  before  there  was  a  Mediator. 
Secondly,  his  subjection  to  the  law  given  to  man. 
This  was  necessary  that  the  stroke  which  fell  on  him, 
though  not  a  literal  execution  of  the  law,  might  more 
familiarly  appear  to  be  inflicted  for  the  sin  of  man : 
and  so  far  as  it  had  this  effect,  it  brought  his  sufferings 
into  a  proper  relation  to  man,  and  to  the  Being  against 
whom  man  had  sinned.  Thirdly,  the  laying  of  the 
scene  of  his  sufferings  in  this  world.  This  also  was 
calculated  to  make  a  more  distinct  impression  that  he 
suffered  for  the  sins  of  the  human  race,  and  served  to 
bring  his  death  into  a  proper  relation  to  him  against, 
whom  the  human  race  had  rebelled. 

*  I  do  not  say  that  the  consent  of  the  Son  while  under  law  was  ne- 
cessary to  render  his  sufferings  just ;  for  had  he  refused  after  his  sub- 
jection, what  he  endured  and  infinitely  more  would  have  been  the  just 
desert  of  personal  delinquency. 


GHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  37 

But  though  his  antecedent  consent,  his  subjection  to 
the  law  given  to  man,  and  his  residence  in  our  world, 
had  a  necessary  influence  on  the  relations  of  his  suf- 
ferings, who  ever  put  either  of  them  into  the  matter  of 
the  atonement  1  Why  then  should  his  obedience  receive 
that  distinction  ? 

There  are  but  four  lights  in  which  imagination  itself 
can  view  the  obedience  of  Christ  as  related  to  the 
atonement. 

(1.)  As  mere  submission  to  authority,  and  as  such 
going  simply  to  constitute  a  relation.  This  was  its 
use  in  the  act  of  the  Priest.  The  influence  of  that  act 
lay  not  in  its  being  a  merit,  or  a  testimony,  or  in  its 
rendering  the  Agent  dear  to  the  Father,  but  merely  in 
its  placing  him  under  the  control  of  authority. 

(2.)  As  a  qualification  rendering  him  dear  to  the 
Father,  not  with  any  reference  to  a  reward,  not  there- 
fore as  a  merit,  but  merely  to  give  his  sufferings  suffi- 
cient expression.  This  was  its  use  in  constituting  the 
well  beloved  Son,  or  in  typical  language,  the  Lamb 
without  blemish. 

(3.)  As  a  testimony,  by  which  something  was  pro- 
nounced respecting  God  and  his  law. 

(4.)  As  a  merit,  standing  related  to  a  reward.  The 
very  idea  of  merit  is,  that  it  is  something  which  deserves 
approbation,  reward,  or  whatever  else  befits  the  sub- 
ject. 

Obedience,  as  it  stands  related  to  the  honour  of  the 
law,  is  a  testimony ;  obedience,  (the  same  identical 
act,)  as  it  stands  related  to  a  reward,  is  merit.  No 
matter  in  what  it  consists,  whether  in  bearing  witness, 
(one  may  be  rewarded  for  giving  testimony,)  or  in 
yielding  to  sufferings,  or  in  performing  any  other  ser- 
vice ;  yet  as  it  stands  related  to  a  reward,  it  is  merit, 

D 


38  MATTER  OF  [PART  I. 

By  merit  I  shall  therefore  mean  obedience  viewed  in 
the  light  of  claiming  a  recompense. 

If  obedience  entered  into  the  matter  of  atonement, 
it  must  have  been  in  one  of  these  four  shapes.  The 
first  two  have  already  been  considered,  the  last  two  are 
yet  to  be  examined. 

Did  then  the  obedience  of  Christ  enter  into  the  mat- 
ter of  atonement  in  the  form  of  a  testimony  ?  And  here 
it  must  be  steadily  kept  in  mind  that  the  great  point  to 
be  proved  was,  that  God  would  support  the  authority 
of  his  law  by  punishing  sin*.  And  now  I  will  show 
you, 

(1.)  That  the  obedience  of  Christ  gave  no  such  tes- 
timony ; 

(2.)  That  if  it  did,  atonement  was  not  made  by  tes- 


*  It  has  been  said  in  a  loose  and  indefinite  way,  that  the  testimony 
of  Christ's  obedience  honoured  the  law,  and  so  rendered  the  pardon  of 
sin  more  consistent  with  its  honour.     But  because  it  honoured  the  law 
in  one  way,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  honoured  it  in  the  same  way  that 
punishment  would  have  done,  or  in  such  a  way  as  in  any  degree  to  an- 
swer in  the  room  of  punishment.   Because  a  man  has  been  honoured  by  a 
commission,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  has  become  consistent  with  his 
honour  to  conceal  a  culprit  from  the  law,  or  to  pass  by  a  malignant  in- 
sinuation against  himself.     What  was  to  be  done  to  render  the  pardon 
of  sin  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  ?  Proof  was  to  be  given  that 
the  authority  of  the  law  should  still  be  supported  by  punishment.  Could 
the  obedience  of  Christ  furnish  that  proof?    This  is  the  sole  question. 
The  testimony  of  his  obedience  did  indeed  honour  the  law ;  but  that 
honouring  was  required  for  a  different  purpose,  to  render  positive  good 
communicable  in  a  way  honourable  to  the  lav.-.     This,  no  less  than 
pardon,  must  be  dispensed  in  such  a  way.     It  was  a  principle  of  the 
first  covenant  that  none  should  be  rewarded  till  they  had  honoured  the 
law  by  the  testimony  of  a  perfect  obedience.     That  principle  was  not 
to  be  given  up ;  and  therefore  Christ  must  obey  before  he  could  be  re- 
warded with  that  positive  good  which  was  intended  for  men;     It  has 
been  said  that  obedience  and  sufferings  united  their  testimony  to  cer- 
tain truths.     But  did   they  unite   their   testimony  to  prove  that   Cod 
would  punish  ?  Did  obedience  give  this  testimony  ?  If  not,  it  testified 
nothing  to  the  purpose. 


CHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  39 

timony,   but  by  giving  the  Father  opportunity  and 
means  to  testify  in  his  own  name. 

(1.)  The  obedience  of  Christ  gave  no  such  testimo- 
ny. It  declared  indeed  that  the  Sacred  Persons  were 
attached  to  the  precept,  and  were  like  it  themselves, 
and  were  willing,  so  far  as  the  expression  of  these 
truths  could  avail,  to  promote  obedience  in  creatures. 
But  did  all  this  prove  that  God  would  punish  sin  ? 
No,  for  first,  we  have  the  testimony  of  facts  that  these 
attributes  are  not  inseparable.  How  many  parents, 
good  themselves,  and  affirming  their  laws  to  be  good, 
like  old  Eli,  are  irresolute  in  punishing.  And  until 
you  first  prove  the  inflexible  resolution  and  universal 
consistency  of  God,  you  know  not  that  the  attributes 
are  united  in  him,  and  cannot  argue  from  one  to  the 
other.  But  after  it  was  given  out  that  man  was  to  be 
pardoned,  whatever  evidence  had  existed  before,  there 
was  not  now  sufficient  light  respecting  that  resolution 
and  consistency,  till  the  sufferings  of  the  beloved  Son 
furnished  it.  And  God  plainly  so  declared  by  resort- 
ing to  this  new  revelation  of  the  very  things  in  ques- 
tion. The  proof  of  that  resolution  and  consistency 
must  be  completed,  by  first  proving  that  he  would  pu- 
nish, and  proving  it  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  before 
one  could  infer  from  his  holiness  and  attachment  to 
the  precept  that  he  would  punish,  and  before  a  testi- 
mony to  that  holiness  and  attachment  could  throw  any 
lk;ht  on  the  latter  question.  The  proof  that  he  would 
punish  must  first  be  completed ;  and  that  completion 
finished  the  atonement,  for  the  only  object,  of  the 
atonement,  as  we  have  seen,  was  to  prove  that  God 
would  punish.  Secondly,  before  this  new  revelation 
was  completed  and  had  decided  otherwise,  it  could 
not  be  known,  that  occasional  exercises  of  absolute 
clemency  were  not  consistent  with  a  perfect  character 


40  MATTER    OF  [PART  1. 

and  government,  because  it  could  not  be  known  that 
they  would  not  subserve  some  important  end.  In- 
deed after  it  was  known  that  man  was  to  be  pardoned, 
and  before  the  great  substitution  was  revealed,  the 
manifestations  of  God  were  decidedly  in  favour  of  the 
conclusion,  allowing  his  character  and  government  to 
be  perfect,  that  absolute  clemency  in  some  instances 
was  consistent  with  the  perfection  of  both.  Until 
then  the  atonement  by  its  finished  testimony  had  de- 
cided the  question,  no  proof  of  God's  holiness  and  at- 
tachment to  his  precept,  nor  yet  of  the  consistency 
and  perfection  of  his  character,  could  evince  a  uniform 
resolution  to  inflict  evil  on  account  of  sin.  And  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  one  end  of  the  atonement  was 
to  convince  the  universe  that  no  such  exercise  of  ab- 
solute clemency  could  consist  with  a  perfect  govern- 
ment. Thirdly,  whatever  might  be  supposed  to  have 
dictated  the  clemency  to  man,  whether  wisdom  or 
weakness,  yet  when  the  purpose  was  known,  to  all 
the  proofs  that  God  would  punish  drawn  from  the 
general  perfection  of  his  nature,  the  answer  would 
still  be  returned,  He  was  such  before,  and  yet  he  re- 
solved not  to  punish  man*  Until  a  great  and  direct 
practical  proof  was  given  that  he  would  punish,  testi- 
monies to  his  holiness  and  attachment  to  his  precept 
could  throw  no  light  on  his  future  rigour,  for  still  the 
answer  would  be,  All  this  he  was  before,  and  yet  he 
did  not  punish  man. 

Let  us  put  these  things  together  and  see  what  would 
naturally  be  the  cogitations  of  creatures  in  the  differ- 
ent stages  of  divine  manifestations.  From  the  pre- 
cept, the  penalty,  the  punishment  of  devils,  and  all 
other  exhibitions  of  God,  there  was  evidence  enough 
before  man  fell  to  persuade  the  well-informed  that 
God  would  punish.     But  now  a  new  thing  is  revealed  ; 


CHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  41 

inan  is  to  be  pardoned.  This  raises  a  doubt  how  far 
God  will  punish  in  future.  Whence  the  failure  no 
one  can  tell,  for  none  can  know  any  thing  of  God  fur- 
ther than  he  is  revealed  in  words  or  actions.  A  con- 
sistory is  held  in  heaven,  and  the  question  is,  will  God 
punish  hereafter  ?  Here  is  a  fact  before  them  ;  man 
has  transgressed  and  is  not  to  be  punished.  Whence 
has  the  fact  arisen  ?  From  any  reluctance  to  rigour 
inconsistent  with  energy  of  government  ?  "  God  is 
not  sufficiently  revealed,"  says  Raphael.  Gabriel 
comes  forward  with  testimony  that  God  is  holy  and 
attached  to  his  precept,  as  an  argument  that  he  will 
punish.  "  It  does  not  answer,"  says  Ithuriel ;  "  he 
was  as  holy  and  as  much  attached  to  his  law  before, 
and  yet  he  would  not  punish  man."  Here  Abdiel 
rises.  "  For  my  part,"  says  he,  "  I  am  persuaded 
that  our  blessed  Creator  is  perfect,  and  that  it  consists 
with  that  perfection  to  let  sin  sometimes  escape  with- 
out rebuke.  Shall  not  patience  and  clemency  be 
displayed  as  well  as  justice  ?  1  have  heard  the  proof 
of  God's  holiness  and  attachment  to  his  precept;  I 
believe  it  all,  but  am  not  convinced  that  he  will  al- 
ways be  severe.  I  am  bound  to  form  my  opinions  of 
God  from  what  he  appears  in  his  words  and  actions. 
He  has  not  said  that  he  will  always  punish* ;  but  in 
this  glorious  clemency  to  man  he  has  plainly  said  that 
he  will  not ;  and  no  proof  of  his  perfection  can  con- 
vince me  that  what  he  now  declares  is  false." 

It  is  plain  that  no  evidence  of  God's  holiness  and 
attachment  to  his  precept  can  convince  Ithuriel  or 
Abdiel  that  he  will  always   exercise  rigour,  or  furnish 

*  The  legal  threatening  is  not  a  pledge  of  truth  that  the  sinner  will 
be  punished  ;  (for  then  how  is  that  pledge  redeemed  when  he  is  pardon= 
ed  by  the  sufferings  of  another?)  but  a  mere  declaration  of  what  is  just 
and  may  ordinarily  be  expected. 

D  2 


42  kATTER  OP  [PART  I. 

the  least  light  to  lead  them  to  such  a  conclusion. 
There  must  be  a  new  revelation,  made  by  actually  in- 
flicting evil  on  account  of  the  sin  of  man.  And  when 
those  holy  beings  saw  the  sword  of  the  Almighty 
thrust  through  the  heart  of  his  beloved  Son,  in  the 
room  of  the  only  sinners  who  were  ever  to  be  pardon- 
ed, then  they  were  convinced,  not  only  that  no  irre- 
solution or  inconsistency  existed  in  God,  but  that  it 
did  not  comport  with  a  perfect  government  ever  to  let 
sin  escape  without  a  frown. 

But  some  suppose  that  at  least  the  last  act  of  Christ's 
obedience  gave  out  the  testimony  that  God  would 
punish  sin,  because  it  was  a  voluntary  surrender  of 
himself  to  die  on  purpose  to  convince  the  universe  of 
this  very  truth.  There  are  two  extremes  about  this 
subject  which  we  can  contemplate  with  clearness. 
First,  if  the  Father,  still  holding  the  authority  of  the 
Godhead,  could  have  consented  to  suffer  in  the  room 
of  sinners,  it  would  indeed  have  shown  his  resolution 
to  punish.  The  king  who  consented  to  lose  one  of  his 
eyes  to  save  one  of  his  son's,  and  thus  gave  two  eyes 
to  the  law  which  demanded  two,  convinced  his  king- 
dom that  future  transgressors  would  lose  both  eyes, 
no  less  than  though  justice  had  taken  its  literal  course. 
Secondly,  where  the  father  and  son  have  t~vo  distinct 
minds,  the  consent  of  the  latter  to  die  for  transgressors 
is  no  testimony  that  the  father  will  punish.  Take  the 
case  of  the  prince  of  Wales  which  has  been  supposed. 
In  consenting  to  die  he  held  this  language  :  "  I  esteem 
the  penalty  just  and  its  execution  important,  which 
shows  that  J  view  transgression  as  a  great  evil,  and  of 
course  that  I  regard  the  precept  as  right  and  valuable. 
I  am  willing  to  give  my  father  this  opportunity  to 
prove  that  he  will  firmly  execute  his  law,  and  sin- 
cerely hope  he  may ;  but  I  cannot  answer  for  my  fa- 


CHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  43 

ther;  he  must  speak  for  himself."     Now  though  there 
are  not  in  all  respects  two  minds  between  the  divine 
Father  and  Son,  they  are  exhibited  in  the  economv  of 
redemption  as  two  distinct  Agents,     There  is  a  foun- 
dation somewhere  among  the  mysteries  of  the  Trinity 
and  personal  union  for  a  distinction  to  exist  between 
the  Father  as  holding  the  authority  of  God,   and  the 
Mediator  in  his  zvhole  Person  ;  and  not  only  for  a  dis- 
tinction, but  for  opposite  relations,  as  opposite  as  any 
which  can  be  found  among  men ;  such  as  King  and 
Subject,  Master  and  Servant,  the  Commander  and  the 
One  who  obeys,  the  Representative  of  God  and  the 
Representative  of  sinners,  the  Demander  of  satisfac- 
tion and  the  Satisfier,  the  Inflicter  of  stripes  and  the 
Receiver,  the  Hearer  of  prayer  and  the  Supplicant, 
the  One  who  makes  and  performs  one  part  of  a  cove- 
nant, and  the  One  who  makes  and  performs  the  other, 
the  One  who  owes  and  grants  a  reward,  and  the  One 
who  earns  and  receives  it :  otherwise  there  is  no  foun- 
dation in  the  Trinity  for  the  work  of  redemption.    On 
the  perfect  distinctness  and  marked  and  stable  oppo- 
sition of  these  relations,  the  whole  efficacy  of  the  me- 
diatorial influence  depended.     And  this  distinction  ex- 
tends to  the  whole  Person  of  Christ,  as  both  divine 
and  human.     Not  a  single  official  act  can  be  ascribed 
to  the  mere  man,  or  to  the  mere  God,  but  to  the  Me- 
diator.    Those  acts  in  which  the  man  most  appears, 
draw  dignity  and  efficacy  from  the  God  ;  and  those 
acts  in  which  the   God  most  appears,  draw  influence 
from  the  man.     The   divinity   of  that   Person  goes 
through  and  qualifies  all  the  acts  and  sufferings  of  the 
Mediator,  and  when  it  has  done  that  it  does  no  more 
in  the  economy  of  redemption.     His  Godhead,  as  it  is 
exhibited  in  this  august  drama,  merely  -helps  to  consti- 
tute the  Person  of  the  Mediator.     Whoever  found  in 


44  MATTER  OF  [PART  I. 

the  Gospel  any  other  Second  Person  than  the  Son,  the 
Mediator,  the  Christ  ?     All  that  is   divine   in  him  is 
thus    set    apart    from     the   Father  and    included  un- 
der the   name  of  the  Mediator  ;  that  xMediator  whose 
Person    is    so   distinct,   and    whose    relations  are  so 
opposite    to  those  of  the   Father.      When  the  Medi- 
ator has   expressed   himself,  there  is  no  other  Second 
Person  to  help  out  or  to  elevate  the  expression.    Now 
in  this  stupendous  drama  the  Father  alone  holds  the 
arm  of  authority,  and  neither  the  Second  nor  Third 
Person  appears  on  the  throne  from  beginning  to  end ; 
(except  the  temporary  authority  delegated  to  the  Son 
as  a  reward,  which  he  will  resign  at  the  end  of  the 
world,  when  he  will  again  become  "  subject"   to  the 
Father,  "  that  God  may  be  all  in  all*.")    In  the  whole 
exhibition  the  Son  appears  either  a  Servant  or  a  Vice- 
gerent till  the  curtain  falls.       The  point  to  be  proved 
was  that  God  would  punish;  which,  according  to  the 
distribution  of  parts,  could  be  made  out  only  by  show- 
ing that  the   Father  would   punish.      And  now  the 
question  is,  whether  the  Servant  in  that  awful  tragedy, 
in  his  most  degrading  act  of  submission,  could  pledge 
himself  for  the  firmness  of  his  Master  and  King,  and 
for  the  future   exercise  of  that  authority   which  was 
dragging  him   like  a  criminal  to   the  stake ;  whether 
the.  act  of  that  Servant,  urged  on  by  the  pressure  of  a 
command,  without  the  liberty  of  choice,  with  the  sword 
of  the  Almighty  at  his  breast,  under  a   necessity  to 
obey  or  suffer  the   endless  penalty  of  the  law,  could 
be   considered    as    the    testimony   of  a  distinct    and 
independent    witness,    or   any   thing    more    than    the 
echo  of    the    Father's    will.        No,    the    only    decla- 
ration which   I    hear  from  the   Son  is  this :    "  I   am 
willing  to  give  the  Father  this  opportunity  to  prove  to 

*  1  Cor.  15.  28. 


CHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  45 

the  universe  that  he  will  punish  sin.  In  this  I  give 
my  opinion  that  the  penalty  is  just  and  ought  to  be 
enforced,  that  sin  is  evil  and  ought  to  be  punished, 
that  the  precept  is  good  and  ought  to  be  supported. 
But  it  is  not  for  me  who  have  no  authority,  but  am 
crushed  under  authority,  to  answer  for  the  Father.  He 
is  about  to  answer  for  himself  in  the  awful  strokes  to 
be  inflicted  on  me."     This  leads  me  to  say, 

(2.)  That  whatever  testimony  the  obedience  of 
Christ  gave,  atonement  was  not  made  by  testimony, 
but  by  affording  the  Father  opportunity  and  means  to 
testify  in  his  own  name.  A  great  and  glorious  testi- 
mony was  to  be  sent  forth  into  the  universe  by  means 
of  the  atonement,  but  that  testimony  was  to  come  from 
the  Father.  He  stood  the  Representative  of  the  God- 
head, filling  the  whole  field  of  vision  allotted  to  him 
who  held  the  arm  of  authority.  The  great  question  to 
be  decided  was  whether  he  would  resolutely  punish. 
Who  was  competent  to  speak  for  God  and  pledge  him- 
self for  the  Most  High  ?  It  became  him  who  was  to  an- 
swer for  the  Godhead,  to  speak  for  himself.  Accord- 
ingly he  appears  the  Principal  in  every  part,  the  Ori- 
ginater  and  Director  of  the  whole.  All  is  appointed 
and  demanded  by  his  authority,  and  done  in  his  name, 
that  the  testimony  may  be  exclusively  his  ;  as  the  ex- 
pression of  a  measure  ordered  by  the  master  of  a  house 
and  executed  by  his  servants,  is  the  expression  of  the 
master  alone.  The  satisfaction  which  he  demanded 
as  the  Protector  of  the  law,  was  not  the  testimony  of 
a  Servant  or  Son,  but  an  opportunity  to  give  to  the 
universe  with  his  own  arm  a  great  practical  proof  that 
he  would  punish  sin.  What  could  the  testimony  or 
obedience  of  another  do  to  that  end  ?  Nothing  would 
answer  but  sufferings  unsparingly  inflicted  on  the  Son 
of  his  love  with  his  own  hand.     And^  when  he  had 


46  Matter  op  [part  i. 

drained  upon  him  the  cup  of  trembling,  as  Guardian  of 
the  law  he  was  satisfied.  Had  the  person  of  the  sin- 
ner stood  before  him  unshielded  by  a  Substitute,  he 
would  have  shown  with  his  own  arm  his  resolution  to 
punish  by  sufferings  inflicted  on  the  sinner.  This 
would  have  been  the  satisfaction  demanded  in  the 
ease  ;  and  no  part  of  it  would  have  consisted  in  the 
consent  of  the  sufferer.  If  the  sinner  was  to  escape, 
the  satisfaction  demanded  was  an  opportunity  to  inflict 
sufferings  on  a  Substitute,  which  should  give  out  the 
same  testimony  as  from  his  own  lips,  or  rather  should 
shed  the  same  practical  proof  from  the  awful  gleam- 
ings  of  his  own  sword.  And  when  he  had  actually  in- 
flicted these  sufferings  to  the  full  extent  which  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  case  demanded,  and  had  thus  testified  by 
the  tremendous  voice  of  his  own  authority,  he  was 
satisfied.  Shall  we  then  say  that  the  action  of  the 
Father  helped  to  make  atonement  ?  No,  for  while  all 
the  testimony  came  from  him,  all  the  atonement  came 
from  the  Son.  The  matter  of  atonement  then  came 
from  the  Son.  This  brings  us  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  matter  of  atonement  was  that  which  answered  to 
these  two  descriptions  ;  it  was  something  yielded  by 
the  Son,  (not  the  act  of  yielding,)  and  something  by 
which  the  Father  testified  that  he  would  punish  sin. 
Now  certainly  the  testimony  of  Christ  was  not  that  by 
which  the  Father  testified.  The  obedience  of  Christ 
was  not  that  by  which  the  Father  proved  in  his  own 
Person  that  he  would  punish.  The  consent  of  Christ 
did  not  show  that  the  Father  would  inflict  evil  on  sin- 
ners without  their  consent.  Nothing  answers  to  these 
two  descriptions  but  the  bare  sufferings  of  Christ.  I 
do  not  say,  the  sufferings  of  —  no  matter  who  ;  but  the 
sufferings  of  the  beloved  Son  of  God.  I  do  not  say, 
sufferings  caused  by  accident  or  self-inflicted  ;  but  suf- 


GHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  47 

ferings  inflicted  by  the  supreme  Magistrate  of  heaven 
and  earth.  When  we  speak  of  the  sufferings  of  the 
damned,  or  the  death  of  a  malefactor,  we  always  in- 
clude the  act  of  the  magistrate  :  we  do  not  mean  dead 
sufferings,  but  sufferings  inflicted  by  way  of  punish- 
ment. It  was  sufferings  inflicted  by  the  Magistrate 
which  were  threatened  in  the  divine  law,  and  suffer- 
ings inflicted  by  the  Magistrate  must  come  in  their 
room.  But  because  the  act  of  the  Magistrate  was  ne- 
cessary, to  say  that  sufferings  alone  did  not  constitute 
the  matter  of  atonement,  is  like  saying,  for  the  same 
reason,  that  sufferings  alone  do  not  constitute  the  pu- 
nishment of  the  damned. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  Scriptures.  And  here  we 
have  nothing  to  do  with  those  texts  which  ascribe  both 
parts  of  salvation  to  the  death  of  Christ.  These  may 
raise  a  question  whether  atonement  lifts  us  to  heaven, 
but  cannot  touch  the  question  whether  obedience  helps 
to  deliver  us  from  hell.  The  solution  is,  that  the  death 
of  Christ  comprehended  both  atonement  and  merit. 
Neither  have  we  any  thing  to  do  with  those  texts  which 
seem  to  ascribe  both  parts  of  salvation  to  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ,  unless  in  opposition  to  those  who  ex- 
clude a  vicarious  sacrifice  altogether.  There  is  a  pas- 
sage of  this  nature  in  the  5th  of  Romans*  ;  where  the 
apostle  is  setting  forth  the  full  contrast  between  the 
first  Adam  who  plunged  us  to  hell,  and  ttue  Second 
Adam  who  raised  us  to  heaven,  with  an  eye  fixed  in  both 
cases  on  the  final  result.  In  contemplating  the  Second 
Adam,  he  is  standing  in  heaven  and  seeing  the  re- 
deemed arrive,  and  fastens  his  attention  on  the  obedi- 
ence by  which  the  latter  half  of  the  salvation  w7as  ac- 
complished :  and  this  he  did  the  rather  to  give  a 
full  point  to  the  contrast,  the  influence  of   the  first 

*  Ver.  17—21.  with  ch.  S,  23. 


48  MATTER  OF  [PART  I. 

Adam  lying  in  disobedience.     But  if  such  passages  do 
not  prove  that  obedience  is  the  sole  ground  of  pardon, 
we  have  no  right  to  make  them  say  that  it  is  the  partial 
ground,  but  must  understand  them  as  sinking  the  pro- 
cess of  pardon  in  the  great  consummation.     Nor  yet 
have  we  any  thing  to  do  with  those  texts  which  as- 
cribe to  the  Priest  the  act  of  making  atonement.  They 
only  affirm  that  he  presented  that  which  was  the  mat- 
ter of  the  atonement  to  God,  and  thus  brought  it  into 
the  necessary  relation  to  him.     Can  any  thing  more  be 
gathered  from  the  type  to  which  they  refer  ?  What  in-, 
fluence  can    possibly   be   ascribed    to   the    Levitical 
priests  but  that  of  presenting   the  victims  to   God  ac- 
cording to  his  appointment  ?  Do  you  add  to  this,  a  tes- 
timony from  the   priest  that  God  would  punish  ?  But 
how  do  you  get  this  testimony  out  ?  Through  the  direct 
expression  of  the  act  as  looking  at  the  penalty  ?  But  the 
priest  stood  there,  not  to  assume  the  tone  of  pledging 
himself  for  God,  but  merely  to  do  as  he  was  command- 
ed.    Through  the  expression  of  the  act  as  looking  at 
the  precept  of  the  moral  law  ?  This  is  testimony  circuit- 
ous indeed.      Let  us  see  how  it  stands.     Aaron's  con- 
sent to  obey  a  ceremonial  command,  (no  matter  what,) 
is  testimony  from  him  that  all  the  precepts  of  the  moral 
law  are  good,  a/id  so  good  that  God  will  not  fail  to  pu- 
nish the  transgression  of  them !  and  this  testimony  en- 
ters into  the  very  essence  of  the  expiation !  No,  his 
atonement  lay  in  no  such  testimony  as  this,  (less  di- 
rect than  that  of  his  ordinary  conduct,)  but  in  the  sin 
or  trespass-offering  presented  to  God.     There   is  one 
passage   however  which  speaks  of  the  action  of  our 
great  High  Priest,  which  deserves  some  attention.     It 
is   in   the   10th   of  Hebrews.     "Then   said  he,  Lo  I 
come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God  : — by  the  which  will  we 
are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  oi  Jesus 


CHAP.   HI.]  ATONEMEM.  $9 

Christ  once  for  all : — for  by  one  offering  he  hath  per- 
fected for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified/'  Here,  you 
say,  a  purging  quality  is  expressly  ascribed  to  the  obe- 
dient action  of  the  Priest.  But  the  fact  is  that  a  higher 
effect  is  ascribed  to  that  obedience  combined  with 
the  sufferings,  no  less  than  actual  pardon,  including  the 
action  of  the  Spirit  which  obedience  alone  secured. 
The  apostle  is  speaking  of  the  joint  influence  of  obe- 
dience and  passion  as  comprehended  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  not  merely  to  render  sin  pardonable,  (the  pro- 
per office  of  the  atonement,)  but  to  accomplish  actual 
remission,  involving  regenerating  grace.  Sanctified 
here  means  separated  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  puri- 
fied from  guilt  or  liability  to  punishment,  pardoned. 
The  meaning  of  the  passage  is,  that  by  obediently 
surrendering  himself  to  die,  and  by  his  actual  death, 
Christ  has  obtained  for  as  many  as  by  that  influence 
have  been  brought  into  a  believing  state,  actual  and 
everlasting  remission.  Here  is  the  application  of  the 
atonement  as  the  reward  of  Christ's  obedience,  and  not 
merely  the  matter  of  expiation.  But  show  me  a  text 
which  affirms  that  either  his  general  or  final  obedience, 
as  a  testimony,  helped  to  render  sin  pardonable.  This 
must  be  adduced  if  any  thing  is  done  to  the  purpose. 

I  will  now  show  you  from  the  Scriptures  that  the  thing 
which  was  offered  for  sin,  and  which  came  in  the  room 
of  punishment,  and  which  laid  the  foundation  for  par- 
don, was  no  other  than  suffering. 

(1.)  It  was  this  which  was  offered  for  sin,  "  Christ 
died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures."  "  He 
was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised 
for  our  iniquities. — The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  ini- 
quity of  us  all.  He  was  oppressed  and  he  was  afflict- 
ed ; — he  is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter. — He 
was  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living ;  for  the  tran?- 

E 


SO  MATTER  OP  [PART  *. 

gression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken. —  It  pleased  the 
Lord  to  bruise  him ;  he  hath  put  himjto  grief.  When 
thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall 
see  his  seed. — He  shall  bear  their  iniquities. — -He  was 
numbered  with  transgressors,  and  he  bore  the  sins  of 
many."  "  After  three  score  and  two  weeks  shall  Mes- 
siah be  cut  off,  but  not  for  himself."  "  Who  was  de- 
livered for  our  offences."  "  He  hath  made  him  to  be 
sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin."  "  He  loved  us  and  sent 
his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation,  [propitiatory  sacrifice,] 
for  our  sins."  "  He  is  the  propitiation,  [propitiatory 
sacrifice,]  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  "  Christ  also  hath 
once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust."  "Who 
his  own  self  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree." 
"  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  manyj 
and  unto  them  that  look  for  him,  shall  he  appear  the 
second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation*." 

(2.)  It  was  this  which  came  in  the  room  of  punish- 
ment, "  He  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our  sor- 
rows.— The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him, 
and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healedt." 

(3.)  It  was  this  which  laid  the  foundation  for  pardon. 
"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
being  made  a  curse  for  us."  "  In  whom  we  have  re- 
demption through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of 
sins."  "  Being  now  justified,  [pardoned,]  by  his 
blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him. 
For  if  when  we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to' 
God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more  being  recon- 
ciled we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life."  "  Almost  all 
things  are  by  the  law  purged  with  blood,  and  without 

*  Isai.  53.  5—12.     Dan.  9.  26.     Rom.  4.  25.     1  Cor.  15.  3.    2  Cor. 
5.  21.  Heb.  9.  28.     1  Pet.  2.  24.  and  3.  18.     1  John  2,  2.  and  4.  10. 
i  Isai.  53.  4,  5. 


CHAP.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  51 

shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission.  It  was  therefore 
necessary  that  the  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens 
should  be  purified  with  these,  but  the  heavenly  things 
themselves  with  better  sacrifices  than  these — For  it 
is  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats 
should  take  away  sins  : — for  then  would  they  not  have 
ceased  to  be  offered?  because  that  the  worshippers 
once  purged  should  have  had  no  more  conscience  of 
sins*." 

But  this  question  respecting  the  testimony  of  obedi- 
ence, it  must  after  all  be  confessed,  has  no  very  im- 
portant bearing  on  the  extent  of  the  atonement.  The 
great  point  is  to  distinguish  between  the  matter  of  ex- 
piation and  the  merit  of  obedience  with  its  claim  to  a 
reward.  This  discrimination  can  be  made  whether 
the  testimony  of  obedience  goes  into  the  matter  of 
atonement  or  not.  We  can  distinguish  between  atone- 
ment  and  a  claim  to  reward  for  making  atonement, 
whether  the  matter  of  expiation  consists  of  two  ingre- 
dients or  one.  I  suppose  that  sufferings  alone  satisfi- 
ed and  rendered  sin  pardonable ;  but  if  obedience, 
while  earning  a  reward,  sent  out  a  testimony  which 
helped  to  satisfy  and  render  sin  pardonable,  it  is  no 
matter  as  relates  to  the  distinction  between  the  satisfy- 
ing matter  and  that  which  constituted  the  claim  to  a 
reward.  Take  the  illustration  before  used.  I  want 
to  make  a  clear  distinction  between  that  which  heals 
the  patient  and  that  which  establishes  the  claim  of  the 
physician  to  a  fee.  According  to  my  theory  the  heal- 
ing  efficacy  lies  in  the  pill ;  the  action  of  the  physician 
has  no  other  influence  than  to  administer  it  in  a  right 
way ;  and  the  claim  to  a  fee  is  grounded  on  that  ac- 
tion. Here  we  can  easily  distinguish  between  the 
liealing  medicine    and  the  action  which  creates  the 

*  Rom,  5.  9,  10,  Gal.  3,  13,    Col.  1.  14.   Heb.  9.22,  23.  &  10.  2,4, 


£2  MATTER  OF  [PART  U 

claim.  Now  change  the  ground  and  assign  a  new 
office  to  the  action.  Say  that  the  physician's  approach 
had  an  influence  upon  the  patient's  imagination  which 
helped  to  work  the  cure.  The  remedy  then  consisted 
of  two  ingredients,  the  pill  and  that  influence  upon  the 
imagination :  the  action  of  the  physician  had  two  ef- 
fects ;  it  administered  the  medicine  and  shed  a  healing 
influence :  the  reward  is  for  the  action  still,  and  nei- 
ther for  the  pill  nor  for  the  casual  influence  dropt  upon 
the  patient's  mind*.  In  this  case  though  we  cannot 
j»et  up  the  broad  distinction  between  the  healing  mat- 
ter  and  the  action,  we  can  still  distinguish  between  that 
matter  and  the  action  viewed  as  entitling  to  reward. 
The  action  considered  as  sending  forth  such  a  casual 
influence,  is  distinguishable  from  the  action  viewed  as 
related  to  a  reward.  The  difference  is  still  plainly 
seen  between  the  healing  influence  and  the  claim  to 
a  fee.  Upon  the  theory  which  1  have  advocated,  we 
can  set  up  the  broad  distinction  between  the  influence 
of  passion  and  the  claim  of  action.  But  the  distinc- 
tion is  visible  enough  upon  the  other  plan.  In  either 
way  we  have  the  distinction  between  the  influence  of 
the  atonement  and  the  claim  to  a  reward  for  making 
atonement. 

This  leads  us  to  see  the  immense  importance~of  dis- 
criminating between  the  matter  of  atonement  and  the 
merit  of  obedience,  in  order  to  separate  the  proper  in- 
fluence of  the  expiation  from  a  claim  to  reward.  Our 
brethren  have  a  strong  reason  for  retaining  obedience 
in  the  matter  of  atonement.  It  is  vital  to  their  system 
to  place  merit  there,  in  order  to  give  to  the  atonement 
a  power  to  secure  the  gift  of  faith,  and  thus  to  accom- 

*  Christ,  we  shall  see,  is  rewarded  only  for  the  merit  of  obedience, 
and  neither  for  sufferings  as  such,  nor  for  any  testimony  which  his  ac- 
tion pave  out. 


CHAP.   III.]  ATONEMENT.  S3 

plish  actual  reconciliation.  Without  an  influence  to 
secure  the  gift  of  faith  it  must  either  fail  to  accomplish 
reconciliation  by  its  own  power,  or  must  obtain  remis- 
sion for  stubborn  unbelievers.  Our  brethren  therefore 
are  willing  to  comprehend  in  the  atonement  the  whole 
influence  of  Christ ;  and  if  they  succeed  in  this  they 
carry  their  point,  at  least  so  far  as  relates  to  the  mean- 
ing and  proper  application  of  the  term.  For  if  the 
atonement  contains  an  influence  which  secures  the  gift 
of  faith,  there  is  atonement  for  none  but  those  who  will 
ultimately  believe.  It  becomes  then  a  vital  question 
whether  merit  is  comprehended  in  the  matter  of  the 
atonement. 

In  settling  this  question  it  is  necessary  to  recur 
again  to  the  radical  idea  of  merit.  In  God  merit  is 
excellence,  viewed  as  deserving  honour,  love,  grati- 
tude, praise,  and  service.  We  put  into  his  merit  also 
whatever  he  is  to  us  or  has  done  for  us  which  justly 
entitles  him  to  our  acknowledgments.  In  those  who 
are  under  law  merit  is  obedience,  considered  as  de- 
serting a  legal  reward.  It  is  obedience  viewed  purely 
in  its  relation  to  a  recompense.  If  then  we  put  merit 
into  the  matter  of  atonement,  we  place  it  there,  not  as 
that  by  which  any  thing  is  to  he  proved,  (for  that  would 
be  a  testimony  not  a  merit ;)  not  therefore  as  any  thing 
which  is  to  witness  that  God  will  punish  sin ;  (indeed 
how  can  the  merit  of  one  prove  that  God  will  punish 
another  ?)  not  therefore  as  any  thing  which  is  to  an- 
swer  in  the  room  of  punishment.  Here  then  we  aban- 
don the  whole  end  of  the  atonement,  and  give  up  the 
need  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice  altogether.  It  comes  out 
that  the  release  of  the  sinner  is  granted  to  Christ  pure- 
ly as  a  reward.  And  this  is  the  ground  taken  by  those 
who  deny  a  vicarious  sacrifice  and  place  the  whole 
atonement  in  obedience.  But  the  fault  of  this  scheme 
E  2 


34  MATTER  OF  [PART  I? 

is,  that  such  an  atonement  furnishes  no  proof  that  God 
will  execute  his  law,  and  answers  in  no  degree  the  end 
of  punishment,  and  therefore  is  not  fitted  to  come  in 
the  room  of  punishment  and  to  be  a  cover  for  sin.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  dispensation  of  pardon  on  this 
ground  would  be  a  plain  declaration  that  God  would 
not  always  inflict  evil  on  account  of  sin.  Suppose  a 
culprit  is  released  as  the  reward  of  a  dutiful  son. 
There  is  no  evil  inflicted  in  the  case  ;  what  evidence 
that  any  will  ever  be  inflicted  ?  What  has  been  may 
be  again,  and  punishment  may  always  be  set  aside  out 
of  favour  to  some  one  who  has  obeyed,  or  even  with- 
out that  consideration.  Indeed  the  clemency  plainly 
declares  that  rigour  is  not  always  necessary,  and  is  not 
always  to  be  exercised.  Nor  can  you  make  merit 
partially  the  ground  of  pardon  without  proportionably 
drawing  after  it  the  same  effects.  In  exact  proportion 
as  pardon  is  dispensed  on  the  ground  of  being  a  re- 
ward to  Christ,  and  not  on  the  ground  of  substituted 
sufferings,  you  abate  the  evidence  that  sin  must  al- 
ways receive  a  frown.  Indeed  there  is  no  halving  of 
things  in  this  way.  If  the  legal  impediment  to  pardon 
is  partly  taken  away  by  Christ's  deserving  a  reward, 
it  must  have  been  such  as  could  not  need  a  vicarious 
sacrifice  to  remove  it.  For  if  the  impediment  was, 
that  the  law  had  threatened  sufferings  and  sufferings 
must  come  in  their  room,  how  could  the  merit  of  a  Sub- 
stitute touch  the  difficulty  ?  And  what  need,  1  further 
ask,  of  any  thing  but  the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God 
to  clear  away  such  an  impediment  as  this  ? 

What  possible  influence  could  merit  have  in  remov- 
ing the  impediments  to  pardon  ?  To  what  does  the 
proposition  amount  ?  That  the  sins  of  believers  are 
pardonable  because  Christ  deserved  a  reward!  What 
conceivable    relation   can   exist   between  these   two 


CHAF.  III.]  ATONEMENT.  55 

things  ?  Christ's  desert  of  reward,  considered  by  it- 
self, could  lend  no  influence  to  render  sin  pardonable. 
Where  is  the  text  that  asserts  or  hints  at  any  such 
thing  ?  On  the  contraiy  have  we  not  seen  that  suffer- 
ings, and  sufferings  alone,  are  every  where  displayed 
in  the  Scriptures  as  the  ground  of  remission  ? 

If  in  any  way  merit  could  enter  into  that  provision 
for  moral  agents  which  we  call  the  atonement,  it  must 
be  on  the  principle  that  the  honour  of  the  law  demand- 
ed that  the  release  of  believers  from  misery  should  be 
a  reward  to  Christ.  That  no  positive  good  could  be 
dispensed  to  men,  in  consistency  with  the  highest  ho- 
nour of  the  law,  otherwise  than  as  his  reward,  I  admit 
and  expect  to  prove.  But  a  bare  release  from  the 
curse  was  a  mere  negative  good,  and  therefore  was 
fully  provided  for  by  his  "  being  made  a  curse  for 
us."  It  so  happens  indeed  that  the  release  is  a  re- 
ward to  Christ,  as  the  matter  lies  between  the  Sacred 
Persons  ;  because  to  him  it  is  a  positive  good,  both  as 
a  public  approbation  of  his  offering  and  a  gratification 
of  his  benevolence.  But  whether  he  is  gratified  and 
honoured  in  this  thing  or  not,  is  a  point  lying  wholly 
between  the  Divine  Persons,  and  not  at  all  affecting 
the  atonement  as  a  provision  for  moral  agents.  Christ's 
being  gratified  and  honoured  by  the  pardon  of  be- 
lievers, does  not  make  their  pardon  consistent  with  the 
honour  of  the  law.  And  on  the  other  hand,  had  he 
ceased  to  exist  after  offering  the  spotless  sacrifice, 
and  thus  ceased  to  be  susceptible  of  reward,  the  par- 
don of  believers  would  not  have  injured  the  law. 
The  provision  for  moral  agents  in  relation  to  pardon, 
was  therefore  complete  without  any  influence  derived 
from  the  claim  of  Christ  to  a  reward. 

But  you  say,  this  is  not  what  we  mean.  We  allow 
-.hat  nothing  helped  to  render  the  sins  of  believers 


56  OBEDIENCE  [PART  I. 

pardonable  but  the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God :  but 
we  insist  that  the  cover  of  sin  is  nothing  short  of  that 
which  accomplishes  actual  remission :  and  as  merit 
procured  the  gift  of  faith,  without  which  pardon  could 
not  be  dispensed,  it  had  an  essential  influence  in  con- 
stituting that  cover.  The  question  then  turns  on  this, 
whether  the  *)jDD  of  the  Bible,  (viewed  as  accepted  of 
God,)  merely  obtained  pardon  for  believers,  or  had  a 
further  influence  to  make  believers.  This  is  a  ques- 
tion to  be  examined  in  another  place.  In  the  mean 
time  let  it  be  remembered  that  we  have  arrived  at  the 
conclusion,  that  the  merit  of  Christ,  or  his  claim  to  a 
reward,  had  no  influence  to  render  the  sins  of  believers 
pardonable.  And  if  it  shall  appear  hereafter  that  the 
atonement,  aside  from  its  covenanted  acceptance,  was 
limited  to  this  very  influence,  it  will  be  established 
that  merit  constituted  no  part  of  the  cover  for  sin*. 


+~*~* 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Christ's  obedience  and  reward. 

There  is  one  point  to  be  settled  at  our  entrance 
upon  this  subject ;  and  that  is,  that  Christ  was  reward- 
ed for  nothing  but  obedience.  To  one  who  never 
brought  this  proposition  before  his  eye,  it  may  wear 
at  first  sight  a  forbidding  aspect;  but  a  few  reflections 
will  convince  him  that  it  must  be  true.     Christ  was 

*  The  author  has  the  pleasure  to  acknowledge  his  obligations  to  his 
friend  and  brother,  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  Richards  of  Newark,  for  im- 
portant assistance  in  this  chapter,  as  well  as  for  his  judicious  remarks 
on  the  book  in  general.  This  however  is  said  without  making  him  re- 
sponsible for  any  of  the  opinions  which  the  book  contain?. 


i;HAP-.  IV.]  OP  CHRIST.  57 

"  under  law,*'  and  his  reward  was  a  legal  one  ;  but 
the  law  never  promised  a  recompense  to  any  thing  but 
obedience.  No  claim  could  be  created  on  the  Father 
but  by  a  promise  from  him,  and  no  promise  appears 
but  to  One  under  law,  for  services  rendered  in  obe- 
dience to  the  command  of  his  King.  One  of  the  du- 
ties enjoined  upon  him  was  to  lay  down  his  life.  So 
far  as  that  was  a  duty  it  was  obedience,  and  no  further 
than  it  was  a  duty  was  it  entitled  to  a  reward.  That 
act  was  of  greater  merit  than  other  acts  of  obedience, 
because  it  involved  greater  self-denial ;  but  the  suffer- 
ings bore  no  other  relation  to  the  reward  than  as  be- 
ing the  highest  test  of  obedience.  Christ  was  reward- 
ed for  his  obedience  "  unto  death,"  not  for  his  suffer- 
ings viewed  as  uncommanded ;  not  therefore  for  suf- 
ferings in  themselves  considered.  What  claim  could 
uncommanded  sufferings  have  to  a  reward?  Should 
4i  creature  in  any  part  of  the  universe  inflict  pain  on 
himself  which  God  had  never  required,  who  would  be 
bound  to  recompense  him  ?  There  is  no  such  duty  of 
supererogation  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  if  the 
sufferings  of  the  Son,  only  as  commanded,  could  be 
entitled  to  a  reward,  it  was  the  obedience  of  surren- 
dering himself  to  die,  and  not  the  pain  as  such,  which 
created  the  claim.  Accordingly  we  are  expressly 
taught  that  his  whole  reward  was  for  obedience.  He 
"  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross ;  wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him, 
and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name*." 
This  name  was  the  Son  of  God,  which  he  obtained 
"  by inheritance'] ;"  and  the  plain  meaning  is,  that  by 
filial  obedience  he  obtained  the  inheritance  and  all 
the  honours  of  a  Son,  that  is,  his  complete  reward. 
Having  settled  this  point,  I  will  now  exhibit  in  one 

*  Phil,  2.  7— 11/— t  Heb.  1,  4, 


58  OBEDIENCE  [PART  I. 

connected  view  the  different  influences  of  Christ's 
obedience,  that  the  reader  may  have  them  clearly  be- 
fore his  mind  in  all  our  future  stages. 

(1.)  The  most  simple  influence  of  obedience  was  in 
the  action  of  the  Priest ;  where  it  operated,  not  as  a 
merit,  nor  as  a  testimony,  nor  as  an  endearing  quali- 
ty, but  as  simple  obedience ;  having  no  other  effect 
than  to  cause  the  sufferings  to  be  yielded  to  the  de- 
mand of  the  Father  and  inflicted  by  his  authority  and 
hand. 

(2.)  Obedience  constituted  the  well  beloved  Son,  or 
in  typical  language,  the  Lamb  without  blemish ;  and 
its  influence  here  terminated  in  rendering  him  dear  to 
the  Father,  without  any  reference  to  a  reward  ;  merely 
making  his  sufferings  expressive  of  God's  inflexible  re- 
solution to  punish  sin.  This  was  not  therefore  the 
proper  influence  of  merit. 

These  two  influences  went  to  qualify  the  sufferings 
and  to  bring  them  into  the  necessary  relation  to  God. 
They  therefore  appertained  to  the  atonement. 

(3.)  Obedience  gave  out  a  testimony  honourable  to 
God  and  his  law.  Some  choose  to  put  this  influence 
into  the  matter  of  the  atonement,  as  going  to  render 
sin  pardonable.  Whether  this  is  done  or  not  is  of  no 
material  consequence  as  relates  to  the  main  question 
to  be  discussed  in  this  treatise.  I  suppose  however 
that  its  operation  was  merely  to  supply  the  place  of 
that  testimony  which  our  perfect  obedience  would 
have  given  out  on  its  way  to  a  reward.  Our  obedi- 
ence would  have  stood  connected  only  with  a  reward, 
and  would  have  given  out  a  testimony  honourable  to 
the  law.  If  the  testimony  of  Christ  takes  the  place  of 
our  testimony,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  pardon  of 
sin,  but  is  merely  an  effluence  of  obedience  as  it  stands 
related  to  a  reward.      But  that  effluence  itself,  it  is 


CHAP.  IV.]  OF  CHRIST.  69 

proper  to  say,  bears  no  relation  to  the  reward.  It  is 
merely  a  casual  influence  which  issues  from  obedience 
as  it  goes  along.  Or  to  speak  more  literally,  it  is  the 
mere  relation  which  obedience  bears  to  the  honour  of 
the  law,  and  not  the  relation  which  it  bears  to  a  re- 
compense. The  relation  which  it  bears  to  a  recom- 
pense, lies  in  no  report  which  it  sends  forth,  but  in  its 
own  intrinsic  excellence.  So  the  good  man  is  reward- 
ed for  his  goodness,  and  not  for  the  influence  which 
his  example  may  chance  to  have  on  others. 

These  three  ends  were  answered  by  obedience,  not 
as  a  thing  related  to  a  reward,  not  therefore  as  a  merit, 
but  as  merely  fitted  to  render  the  sufferings  expressive, 
to  bring  them  into  a  proper  relation  to  God,  and  to 
honour  the  law.  When  obedience  had  exerted  upon 
the  sufferings  the  first  two  influences,  (some  add  the 
third,)  the  atonement  was  complete,  though  not  yet 
accepted;  and  complete  of  course  without  the  influ- 
ence of  merit,  or  without  owing  its  completion  to  any 
claim  which  Christ  had  to  a  reward :  because  it  was 
not  necessary  to  the  honour  of  the  law  that  the  release 
of  believers  from  misery,  (a  mere  negative  good  in 
regard  to  them,)  should  be  a  reward  to  him.  And  if 
without  injuring  the  law  pardon  might  be  granted  to 
believers  without  being  a  reward  to  Christ,  then  the 
Protector  of  the  law  was  satisfied,  (so  far  as  satisfac- 
tion stood  connected  with  pardon,)  without  the  aid  of 
Christ's  merit,  and  had  in  his  hands  all  that  he  could 
receive  from  the  Son  to  enable  him  to  grant  remission 
to  those  who  would  believe.  And  thus  that  provision 
for  moral  agents  in  relation  to  pardon  which  depended 
on  satisfaction  yielded  to  the  Guardian  of  law,  was 
complete  without  the  influence  of  Christ's  merit.  The 
effect  of  all  this  was  that  the  sins  of  men,  allowing 
them  to  be  believers,  were  pardonable.    On  the  ground 


tfO  OBEDIENCE  [PART  1* 

of  that  satisfaction  God  could  remit  the  offences  of  the 
penitent  without  injuring  the  law,  but  he  was  not  bound 
till  another  influence  was  superadded.  This  was  as 
far  as  bare  atonement,  separated  from  its  covenanted 
acceptance,  could  go. 

When  the  sins  of  men  were  thus  rendered  pardona- 
ble in  case  they  would  believe,  there  was  a  change 
wrought  in  their  relations  to  the  law.  This  change 
we  can  contemplate  distinctly  from  every  thing  else : 
and  can  plainly  see  that  the  sufferings  of  the  beloved 
Son,  separated  from  his  claim  to  a  reward,  could  ac- 
complish this  and  no  more.  That  which  produced 
this  change  in  the  relations  of  moral  agents,  ought  to 
have  a  name.  I  call  it  the  atonement,  and  affirm  that 
it  answers  exactly  to  the  *)5D  of  the  Hebrews,  when 
the  latter  is  separated  from  its  covenanted  acceptance. 
But  whether  it  does  or  not  will  appear  in  the  next 
chapter. 

All  the  other  influences  of  obedience  which  are  to 
be  named  were  influences  of  merit,  and  produced  their 
effects  only  by  obtaining  a  reward.  Before  proceed- 
ing further  therefore,  let  us  stop  and  fix  on  some 
marks  by  which  a  thing  may  be  known  to  appertain 
to  Christ's  reward.  I  lay  down  the  following  princi- 
ples. All  that  Christ  did  as  one  of  the  contracting 
Parties  was  to  obey  even  "  unto  death. "  Whatever 
that  obedience  and  death,  stript  of  every  extrinsic  cir- 
cumstance, could  accomplish,  was  done  by  himself; 
the  rest  was  done  by  the  Father,  and  so  far  as  it  ex- 
pressed approbation  of  Christ,  or  honoured  him,  or 
directly  gratified  his  benevolence,  was  a  part  of  his 
reward.  Every  effect  then  which  followed  his  obe- 
dience and  death,  beyond  what  their  own  necessary 
influence  could  accomplish,  and  was  honourable  and 
gratifying  to  him,  appertained  to  his  rewrard.     What 


CHAP.  IV.]  OF    CHRIST,  6i 

then  did  the  necessary  influence  of  his  obedience  and 
death  effect?  It  rendered  every  thing  which  followed 
consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law,  and  created  a 
covenant  claim  on  the  Father  for  the  whole.  It  went 
no  further.  The  bringing  to  pass  of  all  that  followed 
was  the  Father's  part,  and  was  done  in  pursuance  of 
his'  covenant  engagements ;  which  engagements  were 
suspended  on  Christ's  obedience  "  unto  death."  All 
therefore  which  actually  follpwed  was  Christ's  stipu- 
lated reward.     I  now  proceed  to  say, 

(4.)  That  the  merit  of  obedience  gave  to  the  Re- 
deemer a  covenant  claim  to  the  acceptance  of  his 
atonement.  Because  the  sufferings  of  a  Substitute 
were  capable  of  answering  in  the  room-of  the  punish- 
ment of  the  believing  and  reclaimed,  God  was  not 
obliged  to  accept  them  and  release  believers,  until  he 
had  bound  himself  by  promise ;  and  that  promise  was 
suspended  on  the  condition  of  Christ's  obeying  "  unto 
death."  It  was  that  obedience  then  which  gave  him  a 
covenant  claim  to  the  pardon,  on  the  ground  of  his 
atonement,  of  as  many  as  would  believe.  This  was  a 
covenant  claim  to  the  acceptance  of  the  atonement,  and 
rendered  the  pardon  of  believers  certain.  This  claim 
was  completed  when  he  expired,  and  was  acknowledg- 
ed when  he  arose*. 

The  atonement,  viewed  as  thus  accepted,  secured 
the  pardon  of  believers  ;  and  in  going  thus  far  and  no 
further  it  exactly  answered,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next 

*  It  has  been  said  that  the  acceptance  of  the  atonement  as  pronoun- 
ced in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  was  a  public  acquittal  of  him  from 
the  guilt  he  had  assumed,  The  meaning  cannot  be  that  he  was  ac- 
quitted from  sin,  for  he  had  no  sin,  but  that  he  was  acquitted  from  a 
liability  to  suffer.  His  resurrection  was  a  public  declaration  that  his 
sufferings  were  accepted  for  sinners,  and  that  therefore  he  was  undeo? 
no  necessity  or  obligation  to  suffer  further.  In  this  sense  he  was  ac- 
quitted as  the  Representative  of  others  ;  or  in  plain  language,  his  atone- 

F 


62  OBEDIENCE  [PART  I. 

chapter,  all  the  purposes  ever  ascribed  to  the  13D  of 
the  old  dispensation  after  it  was  accepted  of  God. 

Thus  it  was  not  the  same  influence  which  atoned 
that  ensured  the  acceptance  of  the  atonement.  That 
which  atoned  was  the  sufferings  of  the  beloved  Son 
inflicted  by  the  Father's  hand  ;  that  which  ensured  the 
acceptance  was  the  merit  of  Christ,  constituting  a  claim 
to  a  reward  for  general  obedience  and  particularly  for 
making  expiation.  The  completion  of  the  atonement 
and  the  security  of  its  acceptance  were  two  things. 
One  constituted  a  provision  in  the  Father's  hands  for 
moral  agents ;  the  other  appertained  to  Christ's  re- 
ward, and  merely  transferred  the  provision  to  his  hands, 
by  securing  to  him  the  pardon  of  all  who  would  be- 
lieve. 

(5.)  The  merit  of  obedience  gave  to  the  Redeemer 
a  covenant  claim  to  be  honoured  and  gratified  by 
that  open  recognition  of  him  and  explanation  ol 
the  design  of  his  death  which  gave  it  a  bearing 
upon  public  law  and  the  relations  of  men  ;  which 
declared  its  acceptance  and  fairly  placed  mankind  on 
what  we  call  probation.  The  removal  of  the  vail 
which  had  concealed  his  glory  and  the  design  of  his 
death  from  men,  and  the  whole  annunciation  of  him  to 
the  world  by  his  resurrection  and  the  promised  mission 
of  the  Spirit,  belonged  to  the  Father.  His  obedience 
"  unto  death"  entitled  him  to  be  thus  publicly  acknow- 
ledged and  offered  to  the  world.     That  obedience  wa? 


ment  was  accepted  as  the  ground  of  the  pardon  of  those  who  would  bc- 
lieve.  His  resurrection  was  furthermore  a  public  attestation  of  his 
personal  acceptance.,  as  one  who  had  obeyed  and  become  entitled  to  the 
reword.  It  has  been  said  that  if  his  sacrifice  had  not  been  accepted  he 
nevei  would  have  left  the  sepulchre.  This  needs  explanation.  Had 
not  his  sacrifice  been  accepted  it  would  have  proved  that  he  had  not 
obeyed,  and  then  he  must  have  suffered  the  full  penalty  of  the  low,  and 
«f  coin-so  could  not  have  left  the  sepulchre  at  that  time,  nor  over  with 
idorv. 


CHAP.  IV.]  OF    CHRIST.  63 

terminated  when  he  said  on  the  cross,  "  It  is  finished." 
This  was  the  last  act  by  which  he  yielded  himself  to 
the  ignominy  of  the  sepulchre,  which  was  to  consum-. 
mate  his  atonement.  Now  he  became  entitled  to  burst 
from  the  vail  which  had  enclosed  him.  He  who  in 
obedience  to  the  Father  had  studiously  concealed  him- 
self that  he  might  accomplish  his  humiliation ;  who, 
content  with  furnishing  just  evidence  enough  to  sup- 
port a  general  faith,  had  often  charged  men  not  to 
make  him  known,  and  particularly  had  commanded 
those  who  witnessed  the  manifestation  of  his  sonship 
and  future  glory  on  mount  Tabor,  "  Tell  the  vision  to 
no  man  until  the  Son  of  man  be  risen  again  from  the 
dead* ;"  was  now  entitled  to  be  "  declared  the  Son  of 
God  with  power — by  the  resurrection!, "  and  to  re- 
ceive that  Spirit  whose  inspiration  should  make  him 
fully  known,  first  to  the  disciples  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  then  to  the  world  on  the  evangelic  page. 
Never  till  then  did  the  dearest  of  his  disciples  know 
enough  to  say,  "  God  so  loved  the  world  th»*  £g  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life."  This 
public  explanation,  which  carried  in  it  an  offer  and 
conditional  promise  of  life  to  the  world ;  which  laid  a 
foundation  for  faith,  and  actually  placed  men  on  pro- 
bation ;  was  an  essential  part  of  his  reward.  Thus  a 
state  of  probation,  with  all*  the  offers  and  promises 
which  it  involves,  was  procured  for  the  world  by  the 
merit  of  the  Redeemer. 

Thus  we  are  gradually  sliding  into  the  considera- 
tion of  that  positive  good  which  could  not,  consistently 
with  the  highest  honour  of  the  law,  be  issued  to  the 
world  otherwise  than  as  the  reward  of  Christ.  All 
that  was  negative,  or  related  to  a  mere  deliverance 
*  Matt.  17.  9. 1  Rom,  1.  4. 


C4  OBEDIENCE  [PART  t.. 

from  the  curse,  might  have  been  granted  on  the  ground 
of  the  atonement  had  Christ  not  been  in  existence  to 
be  gratified  and  honoured  by  it.  Not  so  with  positive 
good.  It  was  a  law  of  the  first  covenant  that  no  posi- 
tive good  should  proceed  from  God  but  in  approba- 
tion of  a  righteousness  perfect  for  the  time  the  subject 
had  been  in  existence.  This  principle,  as  I  hope  to 
show  in  the  Appendix,  was  not  to  be  given  up.  And 
by  contriving  to  measure  out  all  the  positive  good  in- 
tended for  the  human  race  as  a  reward  to  Christ,  the 
principle  was  preserved.  And  if  the  whole  of  that 
good  followed  as  the  effect  of  his  work,  and  was  ho- 
nourable and  gratifying  to  him,  we  have  public  evi- 
dence that  the  whole  was  to  him  a  reward.  We  have 
seen  that  a  state  of  probation,  with  all  the  offers  and 
promises  which  it  involves,  appertained  to  his  reward ; 
and  we  have  equal  evidence  that  all  the  privileges 
and  comforts  fitted  to  such  a  state  came  in  the  same 
way.  If  Christ  is  the  "  Heir  of  all  things*,"  and  if  the 
all  things  which  constitute  his  inheritance  are  as  ex- 
tensive as  the  interest  which  he  was  empowered  to 
manage,  or  the  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  over 
which  he  was  appointed  to  rule  ;  if  his  inheritance 
comprehends  all  that  which  constituted  him  "  the  First- 
horn  of  every  creature,"  and  gave  him  "  in  all  things 
— the  pre-eminence,"  and  all  that  by  which  he  was 
made  "  better  than  the  angels"  and  "  obtained  a  more 
excellent  name  than  they,"  to  wit,  the  name  of  the 
Son  of  God]  j  then  there  is  nothing  on  earth  which  is 
not  included  in  his  inheritance.  If  furthermore  he 
received  the  whole  inheritance  of  a  Son  for  his  filial 
conduct,  as  the  Appendix  will  prove,  then  he  obtain- 
ed the  whole  by  the  merit  of  his  obedience.  And  if 
lastly,  this  whole  portion  of  a  Son  was   committed  to 

*  Heb.  1.  2. 1  Col.  1.  15—20.  Heb.  1.  4. 


€HAP.  IV.]  OF  CHRIST.  C5 

him,  not  for  bis  own  private  use,  but  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  actually  partake  of  it,  then  all  the  blessings 
which  the  universal  race  enjoy,  as  they  come  from 
God,  are  grounded  on  the  obedience  of  Christ,  and 
pass  to  mankind  through  him. 

It  is  often  said  that  positive  blessings  come  to  us  for 
Christ's  sake,  or  out  of  respect  to  his  righteousness  : 
what  meaning  can  there  be  in  these  expressions  other 
than  what  has  now  been  explained  ?  If  *a  positive 
blessing  is  bestowed  out  of  respect  to  Christ's  right- 
eousness, it  is  the  reward  of  his  righteousness.  If  it 
is  not  the  reward  of  his  righteousness,  how  is  it 
bestowed  for  his  sake  ?  This  general  principle  being 
settled,  I  proceed  to  say, 

(6.)  That  the  merit  of  his  obedience  obtained  for 
him  the  gift  of  faith  to  the  elect.  No  truth  is  more 
clearly  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  than  that  the  raising 
up  of  a  holy  seed  was  an  essential  part  of  the  reward  of 
his  obedience  "  unto  death."  "  When  thou  shalt  make 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed,  he 
shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord 
shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  He  shall  see  of  the  travail 
of  his  soul  and  shall  be  satisfied.  By  his  knowledge 
shall  my  righteous  Servant  justify  many,  for  he  shall 
bear  their  iniquities.  Therefore  I  will  divide  him  a 
portion  with  the  great,  and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil 
with  the  strong,  because  he  hath  poured  out  his  soul 
unto  death*.-'  Thus  his  obedience  "  unto  death," 
like  travail  pains,  was  to  bring  forth  a  numerous  seed, 
in  other  words,  was  to  procure  the  sanctification  of 
his  elect.  After  a  prophetic  account  of  his  death  in 
the  second  Psalm,  there  is  subjoined  a  promise  of  re- 
ward :  "  Yet  have  I  set  my  King  upon  my  holy  hill  of 
Zion.     I  will  declare  the  decree :  The  Lord  hath  said 

*  Is.  53.  10—12. 
F5 


'66  OBEDIENCE  [PART  X,, 

unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee.  Ask  of  me  and  I  shall  give  thee  the  heathen  for 
thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth 
for  thy  possession."  Thus  the  inheritance  of  a  Son, 
received  for  his  Jilial  obedience,  includes  a  redeemed 
kingdom,  a  holy  seed.  The  same  truth  is  taught  in 
many  other  places.  "  Thou  spokest  in  vision  to  thy 
Holy  One,  and  saidst,  I  have  laid  help  upon  One  that 
is  mighty,  I  have  exalted  One  chosen  out  of  the  peo- 
ple.— He  shall  cry  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Father, 
[that  is,  he  shall  be  my  Son.] — Also  I  will  make  him 
my  First-born,  [my  Heir,]  higher  than  the  kings  of  the 
earth. — His  seed  also  will  I  make  to  endure  for  ever, 
and  his  throne  as  the  days  of  heaven*."  But  there  is 
no  need  of  multiplying  quotations  ;  his  kingdom  of  re- 
deemed subjects,  received  as  the  reward  of  his  obedi- 
ence "  unto  death,"  forms  the  leading  topic  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New. 

Thus  the  gift  of  faith  to  the  elect  is  Christ's  reward. 
But  this  is  not  all :  it  could  not  be  bestowed  in  any 
ether  way  in  consistency  with  the  highest  honour  of 
the  law.  The  sanctifying  Spirit  is  a  positive  good  if 
ihere  is  any  positive  good  in  the  universe  ;  and  there- 
fore, according  to  the  principle  established  in  Eden, 
was  not  to  be  granted  but  as  the  reward  of  a  perfect 
righteousness.  In  the  first  moment  of  Adam's  exist- 
ence, the  necessity  of  the  case  required  that  the  Spirit 
should  be  given  him  not  as  a  reward.  During  his 
probation,  and  while  a  claim  to  eternal  life  was  not  es- 
lablished,  the  Spirit  was  not  indeed  due  to  him  as  a  re- 
ward, and  might,  as  the  event  proved,  be  withheld, 
even  before  he  had  sinned  :  yet  during  that  period  it 
could  not  be  bestowed  but  in  approbation  of  a  right- 
eousness periect  for  the  time  the  subject  had  been  i$ 

•  Ps.  2.6—8.  k  89.  3—37. 


CHAP.   IV.]  OF  CHRIST.  6/7 

existence  ;  because  as  soon  as  the  first  sin-  arose,  and 
approbation  ceased  to  be  entire,  it  could  be  bestowed 
no  longer.  Had  Adam  remained  faithful  during  his 
probation,  the  Spirit  would  have  been  eternally  given 
him  as  a  covenanted  reward.  And  then  the  first  mo- 
tion of  sanctifying  power  on  his  infant  son,  would  have 
been  the  reward  of  the  perfect  righteousness  of  the 
father;  and  all  subsequent  motions  would  have  been 
the  reward  both  of  father  and  son.  It  is  exactly  so  in 
respect  to  the  Second  Adam.  In  the  first  moment  of 
his  existence  under  law,  the  necessity  of  the  case  re- 
quired that  the  Spirit  should  be  given  him  not  as  a  re- 
ward. During  his  probation,  and  before  his  claim  was 
established,  the  Spirit  could  not  be  given  him  but  in 
approbation  of  a  righteousness  perfect  for  the  time  he 
had  been  under  law.  After  his  probation  was  closed^ 
he  had  an  eternal  claim  to  the  action  of  the  Spirit  upon 
his  human  nature  as  a  reward.  And  now  the  first  mo- 
tion of  sanctifying  grace  on  those  who  were  given  him 
for  a  seed,  is  solely  his  reward ;  subsequent  motions 
are  a  legal  reward  to  him,  and  a  gracious  reward 
to  them.  In  the  case  of  both  Adams,  the  honour  of 
the  law  required  that  the  Spirit  should  be  given  to  the 
seed  only  as  the  legal  reward  of  the  federal  Parent ; 
that  the  principle  of  granting  no  positive  good  till  the 
law  had  first  received  the  homage  of  obedience,  might 
be  preserved. 

We  shall  now  be  able  to  make  a  clear  distinction  be- 
tween the  provision  for  moral  agents  in  relation  to  par- 
don, and  the  influence  which  secures  the  gift  of  faith. 
Whatever  renders  the  sins  of  men  pardonable  if  they 
will  believe,  and  especially  that  which  secures  to  them 
pardon  if  they  do  believe,  is  certainly  a  complete  pro- 
vision for  them  as  moral  agents  in  relation  to  pardon. 
You  may  put  into  that  provision  whatever  you  please, 
and  still  a  provision  for  the  pardon  of  men  if  they  as 


88  OBEDIENCE  [PART  I. 

agents  will  believe,  is  entirely  distinct  from  the  per- 
sonal claim  of  Christ  to  the  gift  of  faith  to  them  as 
mere  passive  receivers  of  sanctifying  impressions. 
But  the  matter  of  the  provision,  as  I  have  considered 
it,  is  entirely  different  from  the  matter  of  the  claim. 
That  which  renders  sin  pardonable,  is  the  mere  suffer- 
ings of  the  beloved  Son  inflicted  by  the  Father's  hand  ; 
that  which  constitutes  the  claim  of  Christ  to  the  gift  of 
faith,  is  the  merit  of  his  obedience ;  as  wide  a  differ- 
ence as  between  passion  and  action.  Or  if  you  bring- 
in  the  testimony  of  obedience  to  render  sin  pardona- 
ble, still  there  is  a  manifest  difference  between  the  tes- 
timony which  obedience  gives  out,  and  the  intrinsic 
merit  of  it  which  claims  a  reward.  In  both  views  that 
which  renders  the  sins  of  believers  pardonable,  is 
wholly  distinct  from  that  which  secures  the  gift  of 
faith.  But  you  say,  if  the  provision  for  pardon  is  con- 
sidered as  embracing  all  that  which  renders  the  pardon 
of  believers  certain,  the  claim  of  merit  enters  into  the 
provision,  for  it  was  merit  which  ensured  the  accep- 
tance of  the  sufferings.  True,  but  it  was  merit  claim- 
ing a  different  reward  from  the  gift  of  faith.  The  same 
merit  may  ensure  the  acceptance  of  the  sufferings,  and 
thus  place  the  provision  for  pardon  in  the  hands  of 
Christ,  by  making  sure  to  him  the  remission  of  all  who 
will  believe,  and  may  also  secure  the  gift  of  faith  ;  but 
it  is  merit  in  two  distinct  operations,  and  in  two  ope- 
rations which  are  separated  in  fact :  for  who  will 
doubt  that  the  sufferings  were  so  accepted  for  some 
that  they  would  be  pardoned  if  they  would  believe, 
who  yet  never  receive  the  gift  of  faith  ?  But  however 
similar  the  matter  of  the  provision  may  be  to  that  of 
the  claim,  yet  a  provision  for  the  pardon  of  men  if 
they  will  believe,  is  wholly  different  from  the  claim  of 
Christ  to  the  gift  of  faith.  Whether  the  atonement  in- 
cludes the  provision  only,  or  the  provision  and  claijno. 


©HAP.   IV.]  OF  CHRIST.  09 

is  not  now  the  question  ;  but  let  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  be  marked  and  remembered. 

Thus  the  influence  of  merit  is  directly  concerned  in 
the  application  of  the  atonement,  or  in  bringing  about 
actual  pardon.  This  is  the  last  effect  of  obedience  as 
it  stands  related  to  the  covering  of  sin.  Here  I  might 
close  the  chapter ;  but  from  a  wish  to  exhibit  all  the 
offices  of  obedience  at  one  view,  I  will  proceed  in  a, 
cursory  manner  to  its  bearing  on  our  positive  happi- 
ness and  the  exaltation  of  Christ. 

(7.)  As  a  very  important  part  of  the  reward  of  the 
Redeemer,  the  merit  of  obedience  obtained  for  him  the 
sure  and  complete  salvation  of  all  who  once  believe, 
including  all  the  positive  blessings  of  the  life  that  now 
is  and  of  that  which  is  to  come.  This  will  be  largely 
proved  in  the  Appendix.  All  positive  good  was  given 
him  as  his  reward,  and  thus  proceeded  from  God  on  the 
original  principle  of  Eden.  But  it  was  not  given  him 
for  his  own  private  use,  but  for  the  benefit  of  men  ;  to 
fee  partly  bestowed  on  the  race  at  large  in  comforts 
fitted  (o  a  state  of  probation,  and  to  be  in  a  higher 
sense  offered  to  all,  and  actually  given  to  some  as  a 
final  good.  Given  to  whom?  For  whom  did  he  re- 
ceive the  final  good  ?  Here  let  it  be  distinctly  remark- 
ed, that  as  the  reward  was  bestowed  for  the  public  and 
official  obedience  of  Christ,  the  grant  was  of  course 
public,  (to  make  an  open  exhibition  of  his  reward  and 
his  influence  on  the  happiness  of  mankind,)  and  was 
no  part  of  that  secret  contract  which  selected  the  indi- 
viduals of  the  elect.  In  that  public  grant,  the  good 
that  was  to  be  offered  to  men,  and  to  be  bestowed  on 
them  as  a  gracious  reward,  was  not  made  over  to  him 
for  the  benefit  of  the  elect  as  such,  or  for  the  unbeliev- 
ing elect,  but  for  believers,  the  members  of  his  body3 
fhe  Church.     This  public  grant  of  the  outward  parts 


70  OBEDIENCE  [PART  I. 

of  the  inheritance,  took  no  notice  of  elect  or  noii-elect, 
but  only  of  believers,  the  body  of  Christ.     All  things 
were  detached   from  Godhead  and  made  over  to  him 
for  the  ultimate  use  of  his   body.     This  form   of  the 
grant  accomplished   two  things.     First,   it   grounded 
the  positive  happiness  of  believers  on  his  obedience. 
They  partake  of  his  reward  as  "joint  heirs"  with  him 
who  is  the  "  Heir  of  all  things."     Secondly,  it  brought 
the  all  things  into  a  new  relatioi:  to  a  whole  world  of 
moral  agents.     A  grant  made  for  the  benefit  of  believ- 
ers, was  a  grant  made  for  the  benefit  of  all  who  would 
believe;  leaving  all   at  liberty  to   share  in  it  if  they 
would  do  their  duty,  and  becoming  thus  a  grant  for  all 
as  moral  agents.     This  was  not  a  provision  by  which 
all  or  any  as  passive  receivers  might  obtain  the  first'  gift 
of  faith,  but  it  was  a  provision  by  which  all  as  agents 
might  receive  the  whole  amount  of  positive  good  as  a 
gracious  reward  for  believing  and  obeying.     In  that 
grant  was  contained  the  public  ministration  of  the  Spi- 
rit, not  for  the  benefit  of  all  as  mere  passive  receivers 
of  sanctifying  impressions,  but  for  the  use  of  all  as 
moral  agents,  to  give  them  convicting  light,  (such  as 
is  adapted  to  present  motives  to  agents,)  and  to  be  of- 
fered to  them  in  its  highest  operations  as  an  unaliena- 
ble  good   if  they  humbly   and    believingly  seek   it. 
There  was  a  provision  then  in  this  grant  for  the  con- 
tinued sanctification  of  Simon  Magus  if  he  as  an  agent 
would  once  believe,  though  not  for  his  regeneration  as 
a  mere  passive  receiver  of  sanctifying  impressions. 
And  this  new  relation  to  a  world  of  moral  agents  of 
the  all  things  of  which  Christ  is  Heir,  was  a  part  of  his 
reward.     He  was  rewarded  by  that  grant  which  drew 
the  new  relation  after  it,  and  which  without  that  cir- 
cumstance  would  not  have   been   the   same  reward. 
Thus  the  merit  of  Christ's  obedience  procured  eternal 


CHAP.   IV. J  OP  CHRIST.  71 

life  and  all  positive  good  for  the  race  at  large,  in  the 
highest  sense  in  which  they  could  be  procured  for  mere 
moral  agents,  that  is,  for  creatures  not  to  be  acted  upon 
by  sanctifying  influence  except  as  a  reward  to  them- 
selves. Accordingly  a  part  of  that  good,  viz.  a  state 
of  probation  with  all  the  means  and  comforts  which  it 
involves,  is  for  his  sake  conferred  on  the  race  at 
large,  and  the  rest  is  offered  to  all  as  what  he  procured 
for  them  in  such  a  sense  that  it  is  to  be  theirs  if  they 
will  make  it  their  own. 

These  points,  I  hope,  will  present  themselves  to 
those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  sacred  page  as  self- 
evident  truths.  If  not,  I  must  rely  on  the  proof  to  be 
exhibited  that  such  a  provision  for  all  as  agents  was 
made  in  the  atonement ;  for  it  is  not  the  object  of  this 
treatise  to  go  beyond  the  expiation :  and  none  will 
doubt,  if  sufferings  made  provision  for  all  as  agents  in 
reference  to  their  pardon,  that  obedience  made  an 
equally  extensive  provision  in  relation  to  their  positive 
happiness.  Indeed  many  of  the  texts  which  I  shall 
bring  to  prove  so  extensive  a  provision  in  the  atone- 
ment, equally  prove  the  other  part ;  but  I  shall  quote 
them  only  to  establish  the  former  point.  And  this  no- 
tice I  give  once  for  all,  that  I  may  not  s$ em  to  quote 
passages  with  inattention  to  a  part  of  their  meaning. 

Thus  this  public  grant  to  Christ  for  the  benefit  of 
believers,  constituted  a  provision  for  a  whole  world  of 
moral  agents.  This  was  its  first  and  simplest  opera- 
tion. But  besides  this  provision  for  agents,  there  was 
another  part  of  Christ's  reward  which  related  to  sanc- 
tifying impressions  on  mere  passive  receivers.  This  in 
general  was  promised  him  in  the  public  covenant,  as  we 
have  seen  ;  but  the  individuals  who  were  to  be  the 
subjects  of  these  impressions  were  fixed  in  a  secret 
compact,  altogether  distinct  from  that  from  which  the 


W  OBEDIENCE  [PART  I. 

public  transactions  took  their  nature  and  their  bearing 
upon  public  law,  and  relating  merely  to  Christ's  re- 
ward. In  virtue  of  that  secret  compact,  altogether 
distinct  from  that  on  which  both  parts  of  the  provision 
for  moral  agents  were  founded,  the  elect  were  caused 
to  believe,  and  were  thus  brought  into  that  state  where 
all  the  provisions  and  promises  could  act  upon  them, 
and  where  others  also,  had  they  of  their  own  accord 
believed,  would  have  found  the  same  provisions. 

And  now  if  you  ask  about  the  secret  purposes  of  the 
Divine  Mind,  the  blessings  of  that  grant  were  specially 
intended  for  the  elect ;  but  if  you  inquire  about  the 
form  of  the  public  instrument,  the  blessings  were  deli- 
vered to  Christ  for  all  alike. 

(8.)  The  merit  of  obedience  gave  to  the  Redeemer 
a  covenant  claim  to  the  administration  of  his  Fathers 
government,  witli  all  the  public  honours  which  surround 
his  throne.     That  government,  which  he  desired  and 
considers  a  reward,  he  exercises,  not  only  over  mere 
passive  receivers  of  sanctifying  impressions,  (quick- 
ening whom  he  will,)  but  over  a  world  of  moral  agents, 
offering  them  indiscriminately  the  benefits  of  his  pur- 
chase, and  commanding,  inviting,  promising,  threaten- 
ing, rewarding,  and   punishing,   as  though  they  were 
independent  of  the  Spirit.     This  new  and  more  be- 
nign government  over  a  world  of  moral  agents,  found- 
ed on  those  new  relations   which  his  work  had  esta- 
blished, it  was  an  important  object  with  him  to  admi* 
nister,  as  calculated  to  bring  out  to  view  the  riches  of 
the  divine  nature,  and  to  promote  the  happiness  of  the 
universe.     This  was  the  ultimate  end  of  those  provi- 
sions for  moral  agents  which  the  omniscience  of  God 
foresaw  would  in  many  instances,  through  the  miscon- 
duct of  men,  fail  to  prove  an  ultimate  blessing. 

Thus  the  parts  of  Christ's  reward  were,  first,  the 


CHAP.  IV.]  OF  CHRIST.  73 

acceptance  of  the  atonement:  secondly,  that  public 
recognition  of  him  and  explanation  of  the  design  of  his 
death  which  laid  a  foundation  for  faith  ;  thirdly,  the 
gift  of  faith  to  the  elect ;  fourthly,  the  grant  of  all  po- 
sitive good  for.  the  use  of  men  as  probationers,  and  in 
a  higher  sense  for  as  many  as  would  believe,  consti- 
tuting a  provision  for  a  world  of  moral  agents  ;  fifthly, 
the  administration  of  his  Father's  government,  parti- 
cularly over  a  race  of  agents  brought  into  a  new  rela- 
tion to  God.  By  this  enumeration  we  may  learn  what 
reward  was  promised  to  Christ  in  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption. If  he  had  a  claim  to  each  of  these  parts, 
we  know  that  his  claims  could  be  founded  on  nothing 
but  contract.  Either  then  all  these  things  were  pro- 
mised, or  God  bestows  sovereign  rewards  for  which 
the  Recipient  has  no  claim.  Against  the  latter  alter- 
native I  allege,  first,  that,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  there 
was  the  same  reason  why  the  whole  reward  should  be 
promised  as  a  part, — why  the  whole  influence  and  ef- 
fect of  Christ's  work  should  be  settled  by  covenant  as 
that  a  part  should  be.  Secondly,  the  whole  reward  was 
legal  and  conferred  by  the  Lawgiver ;  and  it  is  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  a  legal  government  to  pro- 
mise the  whole  reward  beforehand.  Thirdly,  if  it  was 
important  for  the  honour  of  the  law  that  all  positive 
good  should  be  known  to  be  issued  as  Christ's  reward, 
it  would  tend  to  make  a  more  distinct  impression  of 
this  truth,  to  have  it  understood  that  all  had  been  pro- 
mised him  as  his  reward.  Fourthly,  whatever  God 
saw  beforehand  would  be  a  suitable  reward  to  Christ, 
and  was  determined  to  confer,  must  have  been  known 
to  the  Son  ;  and  the  only  difference  between  promising 
and  not  promising  related  to  the  bond  ;  and  why  a  part 
of  what  both  divine  Persons  knew  to  be  a  suitable  re- 
ward, and  knew  would  be  conferred,  should  be  ex- 

G 


ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  I. 

empted  from  the  bond  which  fixed  the  other  part,  no 
one  I  believe  can  conceive.  Fifthly,  every  part  of  the 
reward  7uas  promised  in  general  terms  in  the  revela- 
tion made  to  the  Church.  And  why  greater  promises 
should  be  made  in  public  than  had  been  made  in  pri- 
vate, it  would  be  hard  to  tell.  On  the  whole  we  may 
safely  conclude  that  Christ  had  a  covenant  claim  to 
every  part  of  his  reward,  and  that  the  reward  itself 
discloses  what  the  covenant  was.  The  light  thus  cast 
upon  the  covenant  of  redemption,  I  shall  have  occa 
sion  to  make  use  of  in  a  subsequent  part. 

— ++— — 


CHAPTER  V. 

ATONEMENT   NOT    RECONCILIATION. 

The  chief  design  of  this  chapter  is  to  fix  the  mean- 
ing of  the  wTord  atonement,  and  to  separate  that  part 
of  Christ's  influence  which  falls  under  this  name  from 
all  the  rest. 

We  are  reconciled  by  the  atonement,  because  that 
is  the  ground  of  our  reconciliation  :  but  atonement  is 
not  itself  reconciliation  or  pardon,  neither  does  it  con- 
tain the  influence  which  secures  reconciliation. 

I.  Atonement  is  not  itself  reconciliation  or  pardon. 
For  then  either  no  atonement  was  made  for  Paul  be- 
fore his  conversion,  or  he  was  pardoned  while  in  a 
state  of  settled  rebellion.  The  former  will  not  be  said, 
the  latter  cannot  be  true.  At  the  time  of  his  conver- 
sion, he  was  exlorted  to  be  baptised  and  to  "  wash 
away"  his  "  sins."  Then  for  the  first  time  he  "  ob- 
tained mercy,"  and  found  that,  so  far  from  being  par- 


CHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  75 

doned  from  eternity,  he  had  escaped  the  unpardona- 
ble sin  only  by  acting  "  ignorantly  in  unbelief*." 

It  is  indeed  said  that  "  when  we  were  enemies  we 
were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Sont ;"  but 
this  can  only  mean  that  when  we  were  in  a  state  of 
enmity  and  condemnation,  we  were  arrested  and 
brought  into  a  state  of  holiness  and  justification.  It 
cannot  mean  that  we  were  justified  while  enemies  ;  for 
the  great  object  of  the  Epistle,  and  of  the  context  it- 
self, is  to  prove,  not  justification  without  faith,  but  jus- 
tification by  faith. 

This  dream  of  eternal  justification  has  no  support 
in  the  word  of  God.  We  read  indeed  of  the  decree  of 
election,  and  of  a  seed  given  to  Christ  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world  ;  but  these  were  not  eternal  justi- 
fication. Condemnation  and  justification  express  the 
relations  and  actual  treatment  of  moral  agents,  which 
cannot  be  ulder  than  the  existence  of  creatures  ;  that 
decree  and  promise  regarded  the  elect  in  the  light  of 
mere  passive  receivers  of  sanctifying  impressions. 
The  latter  appertained  to  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion ;  justification  takes  place  under  the  covenant  of 
grace.  Those  were  a  purpose  and  promise  re- 
specting men  ;  this  the  actual  treatment  of  men.  It 
was  eternally  purposed  and  promised  that  the  elect 
as  passive  should  be  regenerated,  and  that  when  they 
should  believe  they  should  be  justified  by  faith,  a  pri- 
vilege which  was  to  be  common  to  all  if  they  would 
believe.  All  that  was  peculiar  to  the  elect  in  the  pur- 
pose or  promise  respected  them  as  passive,  but  justi- 
fication respects  men  as  agents.  To  make  that  pecu. 
liar  thing  justification,  is  utterly  confounding  the  two 
characters  of  men,  and  what  I  shall  hereafter  have  oc- 
casion to  call  the  two  corresponding  departments  of 
divine  operations.     It  is  speaking  of  one  department 

*  Acts  22.  16.  1  Tim.  1. 13.   16. +  Rom.  5. 1Q„ 


<0  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  I, 

in  the  language  of  the  other,  and  ascribing  to  one  the 
acts  of  the  other ;  and  is  as  inconsistent  and  as  expres- 
sive of  falsehood,  as  for  Paul  to  have  addressed  a 
Jewish  synagogue  as  one  speaking  to  a  Roman  senate, 
giving  titles  and  alluding  to  facts  as  present  which  ex- 
isted only  at  Rome. 

Or  if  you  insist  that  the  distinctive  purpose  and 
promise  respected  the  elect  as  agents,  and  secured  to 
them  as  such  a  privilege  which  other  agents  would  not 
enjoy,  still  it  was  not  eternal  justification.  Was  it  the 
eternal  purpose  and  promise  that  they  should  be  jus- 
tified ?  So  it  was  the  eternal  purpose  and  promise 
that  they  should  exist,  and  that  they  should  believe  : 
but  did  they  exist  and  believe  from  eternity  ?  They 
could  not  be  justified  in  C/wist  before  they  had  sinned 
and  were  condemned  :  and  did  they  sin  and  were  they 
condemned  from  eternity  ?  Eternally  condemned  and 
eternally  justified !  An  eternal  design  to  justify  was 
no  more  eternal  justification,  than  an  eternal  design  to 
create  was  eternal  creation.  You  might  as  well  talk 
of  the  eternal  enactment  of  the  law,  or  the  eternal 
mission  of  the  Spirit. 

The  universal  language  of  Scripture  is  that  justifi- 
cation is  in  time.  In  Abraham's  day  the  justification 
of  the  Gentiles  was  yet  future.  "  The  Scripture  fore- 
seeing that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith, 
preached  before  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In 
thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed*."  Even  the  pre- 
diction and  promise  were  not  justification. 

There  never  was  any  agreement  or  understanding 
between  the  Sacred  Persons,  either  in  heaven  or  on 
Calvary,  that  agents  should  be  justified  until  as  agents 
they  had  believed.  Christ  never  stipulated  that  men 
should  be  justified  from  eternity,  but  died  that  they 

*  Gal.  3.  8. 


€HAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  7? 

might  be  justified  after  their  effectual  calling.  "  For 
this  cause  he  is  the  Mediator  of  the  new  testament, 
that  by  means  of  death  for  the  redemption  of  the  trans- 
gressions that  were  under  the  first  testament,  they 
which  are  called,  [not  they  which  were  elected,]  might 
receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheritance."  The  or- 
der of  links  in  the  golden  chain  is  this  :  "  Whom  he 
did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called ;  and  whom  he 
called,  them  he  also  justified*."  The  whole  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  lies  with  the  weight  of  a  world 
on  the  same  side. 

The  elect  themselves  before  their  conversion,  in- 
stead of  being  justified,  are  actually  under  condemna- 
tion. It  is  expressly  affirmed  that  they  are  "  by  na- 
ture the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others."  The  first 
motion  of  faith  in  every  instance,  (among  adults,)  is 
the  boundary  between  a  state  of  condemnation  and 
justification.  "  He  that  bel'eveth — is  not  condemned^ 
but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already."  "  As 
many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law,  [which  is  ex« 
plained  to  mean,  as  many  as  have  not  faith,]  are  under 
the  curse."  Accordingly  pardon  is  every  where 
placed  after  repentance.  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake 
his  *-ay  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let 
him  return  unto  the  Lord  and  he  will  have  mercy 
upon  him,  and  to  our  God  for  he  will  abundantly  par- 
don." "  After  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put 
my  law  in  their  inward  parts, — and  will  be  their  God  1 
— for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity."  What  else  is  im- 
plied in  prayers  for  pardon  offered  up  in  time? 
What  else  can  be  meant  by  actual  remission  in  an- 
swer to  prayer?  What  else  by  God's  being  now 
*4  ready  to  pardon,"  and  by  the  exhortation  to  sinners 
"  to  tiee  from  the  wrath  to  come"  ?     What  by  the  pa» 

*  Eom,  8.  30.  Heb.  9. 15, 

G  2 


78  ATONEMENT    NOT  [PART  I. 

rabies  of  the  publican  and  the  prodigal  son  ?  Paul 
was  sent  to  turn  the  Gentiles  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  God,  that  they  "  might  receive  forgiveness  of 
sins."  The  whole  consistory  of  apostles  were  sent  forth 
to  preach  "repentance  and  remission  of  sins,"  and  to 
say,  "  Repent  and  be  baptised  every  one  of  you  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
"  Him.  hath  God  exalted — to  give  repentance  to  Israel 
and  forgiveness  of  sins."  u  Repent  ye  therefore  and 
be  converted  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out." 
"  Repent  of  this  thy  wickedness,  and  pray  God,  if 
perhaps  the  thought  of  thy  heart  may  be  forgiven 
thee*." 

Thus  the  elect  themselves  plainly  lie  under  con^ 
demnatidn  until,  (if  adults,)  they  believe.  Though  in 
relation  to  them  as  passive  receivers  of  sanctifying 
impressions,  there  was  a  decree  and  promise  that  they 
should  receive  faith,  yet  as  agents,-  (and  as  such  only 
do  they  bear  any  relation  to  the  law,  its  precept, 
threatening,  or  promise,  to  sin,  condemnation,  pardon, 
justification,  punishment,  or  reward,)  they  are  not  jus- 
tified till  they  believe. 

Nor  could  it  possibly  have  comported  with  the  ho- 
nour of  the  law  for  any  atonement,  let  it  consist  in 
what  it  might,  or  for  any  thing  else,  to  have  procured 
remission  for  men,  and  cast  over  them  the  shield  of 
impunity,  while  continuing  to  trample  the  law  in  the 
dust,  and  spurning  the  expedient  devised  for  its  sup- 
port. This  would  have  ruined  the  law  and  defeated 
the  verv  end  of  the  atonement,  which  was  to  convince 
the  universe  that  transgressors  should  not  go  unpunish* 

*  Ex.  34.  9.  Num.  14.  20.  2Chron.  30.  18.  Neh.  9.  17.  Ps.  25.  11. 
Is.  55.  7.  Jer.  31.  31—34.  k  33.  8.  Luke  3.  7.  &  15.  11—32.  Sc  18.  13, 
14.  &  24.  47.  John  3. 18.  Ads  2.  38.  &  3.  19.  &  5.  31.  ic  8.  22.  &  26,  18 
Rom.  3.  28.  Gal.  3.  10.  Eph.2.  3.  James  5.  15.    1  John  1.  9. 


CHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  79 

ed.  Instead  of  pronouncing  in  the  ears  of  the  whole 
creation  that  the  breakers  of  the  law  in  all  worlds  and 
ages  should  die,  it  would  have  proclaimed  impunity  to 
rebellion  in  all  its  maddest  and  most  confirmed  ra- 
vings. No  atonement  could  protect  a  single  impeni- 
tent sinner,  and  pronounce  upon  him  that  he  should 
never  be  punished,  without  losing  the  whole  expres- 
sion which  it  was  intended  to  make.  Look  at  the  case 
of  the  prince  of  Wales.  Why  did  he  die  ?  To  make 
a  deep  impression  on  the  multitude  that  no  counter- 
feiter should  ever  escape.  Suppose  that  his  death 
and  the  covenant  connected  with  it  had  bound  the 
arm  of  government  not  to  strike  the  ten  criminals 
though  going  on  in  their  old  ways,  and  had  thus  let 
them  loose  to  counterfeit  with  impunity.  When  these 
culprits  stalk  abroad  untouched,  and  drive  their  nefa- 
rious trade  from  year  to  year  without  a  frown,  who  is 
convinced  by  the  death  of  the  prince  that  the  law  is 
to  have  its  complete  dominion,  and  that  all  future 
counterfeiters  shall  die  ?  Instead  of  awing  transgres- 
sors, his  death  has  thrown  the  reins  upon  their  neck 
and  completely  ruined  the  law. 

Thus  whatever  respect  the  atonement  might  have 
to  the  elect  as  destined  to  be  receivers  of  sanctifying 
impressions,  it  could  not  break  the  relation  to  con- 
demnation which  they  as  agents  sustained,  and  pro- 
nounce them  acquitted,  until,  (if  adults,)  they  had  be- 
lieved. It  was  not  therefore,  reconciliation,  provided 
a  complete  atonement  for  Paul  existed  before  Paul  be- 
lieved. 

II.  Nor  does  the  atonement  contain  the  influence 
which  secures  reconciliation.  As  it  could  not  justify 
unbelievers,  it  had  no  way  to  secure  reconciliation  but 
by  ensuring  the  gift  of  faith.  And  this  is  what  is  ge- 
nerally ascribed  to  it  by  those  who  talk  of  its  recon- 


80  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  I. 

ciling  power.  The  great  question  then  is,  does  the 
atonement  by  its  own  proper  influence  secure  the  gift 
of  faith  ? 

This  at  once  calls  upon  us  to  decide  what  the  atone- 
ment is,  and  how  much  of  the  influence  of  Christ  falls 
under  this  name.  Our  own  opinion  is,  that  the  name 
is  applicable  only  to  that  which  answered  the  end  of 
punishment,  by  showing  the  universe  that  God  would 
support  his  law  by  executing  its  penalty  on  transgres- 
sors ;  which  thus  secured  the  authority  of  the  law  and 
satisfied  its  Protector,  and  besides  removing  the  curse 
of  abandonment,  reconciled  with  the  honour  of  the  law 
the  pardon  of  believers,  (whether  of  all  indiscrimi- 
nately who  would  believe,  or  of  those  only  who  it  was 
foreseen  would  believe  5)  which  thus  removed  the  legal 
impediments  to  the  acquittal  of  believers,  and  render- 
ed their  sins  pardonable,  and  so  became  the  ground  of 
pardon.  Such  an  influence,  separated  from  that  which 
secures  the  gift  of  faith,  was  to  Paul  before  his  conver- 
sion, (aside  from  its  bearing  on  his  regeneration  by  re- 
moving the  curse  of  abandonment,)  nothing  but  a  pro- 
vision for  a  moral  agent,  presenting  to  him  a  ground 
on  which  he  might  be  pardoned  if  he  would  believe, 
and  taking  away  the  penal  bar  to  his  continued  sanc- 
tification,  but  having  no  power  to  secure  the  gift  of 
faith.  Standing  by  itself,  it  had  simply  changed  his 
relations  as  an  agent,  and  as  it  bore  on  pardon,  had 
merely  rendered  his  sins  pardonable  if  he  would  per- 
form his  duty,  and  pardonable  on  no  other  terms. 
And  after  his  conversion,  it  was  such  a  provision  ap- 
plied, and  became  the  ground  on  which  a  sinning 
agent  was  pardoned,  and  so  far  as  related  to  the  curse 
of  abandonment,  the  ground  on  which  he  continued  to 
be  sanctified*. 

*  The  removal  of  the  curse  of  abandonment,  though  even  as  it  bore 
on  regeneration  it  took  away  what  agents  had  caused,  was  no  part  of 


CHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  SI 

Here  then  is  a  mighty  change  wrought  in  the  rela- 
tions of  moral  agents,  (whether  of  a  part  or  the  whole 
of  mankind  I  am  not  now.  inquiring,)  distinct  from  eve- 
ry thing  relating  to  the  sv.me  creatures  as  mere  pas- 
sive subjects  of  regeneration.  The  influence  which 
produced  this  change  was  certainly  distinct  from  that 
wrhich  related  to  mere  recipients  of  regenerating  pow- 
er, though  both  should  be  allowed  to  have  existed  in 
the  same  thing.  Now  what  shall  we  call  this  influ- 
ence ?  It  is  so  distinguishable  in  its  effects,  and  at  the 
same  time  so  important,  that  it  deserves  a  separate 
name,  and  ought  not  to  be  lost  in  general  appellations. 
What  name  shall  we  give  it  ?  Is  it  not  in  fact  the  cover 
for  sin  ?  Then  we  must  call  it  the  atonement.  And 
then  the  atonement  is  that  which  changes  the  relations 
of  moral  agents  in  reference  to  a  release  from  the 
curse,  and  not  that  which  procures  the  positive  gift  of 
the  Spirit  to  passive  recipients. 

This  is  our  idea  of  the  atonement^:  but  whether  it  is 
correct  or  not  depends  on  the  question  whether  the 
atonement  contains  that  influence  which  secures  the 
gift  of  faith.  In  this  and  the  foregoing  chapters  I  have 
been  separating  and  shaping  materials  for  the  decision 
of  this  question.     Let  us  see  to  what  they  amount. 

We  have  found  that  the  atonement  is  the  cover  for 
sin,  by  which  is  meant  that  it  hides  or  is  adapted  to 
hide  sin  so  from  view  that  it  will  not  be  punished  ;  that 
therefore  it  came  in  the  room  of  punishment  and  an- 
swered the  same  end,  or  was  adapted  to  come  in  the 

a  provision  for  agents  but  as  it  removed  the  penal  bar  to  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  on  their  doing  their  duty.  A  provision  for  agents  is  not  that 
which  undoes  what  agents  have  done,  but  that  which  agents  may  im- 
prove, and  the  effects  of  which  depend  on  their  improvement  as  a  sine 
qua  nan.  This  removal,  as  it  took  away  the  penal  bar  to  the  regenera- 
tion of  Paul,  was  not  a  provision  for  an  agent ;  as  it  removed  the  penal, 
bar  to  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  on  his  faithfully  seeking  ity  it  was. 


82  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  I. 

room  of  punishment  and  to  answer  the  same  end  ;  that 
that  end  was  to  support  the   law   by  convincing   the 
universe  that  God  would  punish  transgression  ;  that  the 
means  of  this  conviction  were  the  sufferings  of  the  be- 
loved Son  inflicted  by  the  Father's  hand,  which  there- 
fore constituted  the  matter  of  the  atonement ;  that  when 
the  end  of  punishment  was  thus  answered,  the  Protector 
of  the  law  was  satisfied,  and  the  legal  impediments  to 
pardon  were  removed  ;  that  the  result  of  this  was  that 
the  sins  of  believers,  and  of  none  else,  were  pardona- 
ble, and  God  could  forgive  them  without  injuring  the 
law,  but  was  not  obliged  till  another  influence,  a  pro- 
mise made  to  the  obedience  of  Christ,  had  created  the 
bond  ;  that  atonement  is  distinguishable  from  its  cove- 
nanted acceptance,  it  being  that  wThich  came  from  the 
Son  and  satisfied  the  Father,  and  not  the  security  given 
by  the  Father  to  the  Son  that  believers  should  be  par- 
doned on  that  ground  ;  that  this  ground  on  which  men 
might  be  pardoned,  viewed  as  already  believing,  could 
not  be  the  influence  which  secures  the  gift  of  faith ; 
that  the  atonement  therefore,  separate  from  its  cove- 
nanted acceptance,  was,  in  relation  to  those  for  whom 
it  was  made,  a  mere  provision  in  the  hands  of  the  Fa- 
ther for  moral  agents,  rendering  it  possible  for  him  to 
pardon  them  when  they  should  believe  ;  and  that  its 
covenanted  acceptance   merely  placed  that  provision 
for  moral  agents  in  the  hands  of  Christ,  by  securing  to 
him  the  pardon,  on  that  ground,  of  all  who  would  be- 
lieve.    Besides  this  connected  chain  whose  links  seem 
indissoluble,  we  have  found  that  an  entirely  different 
influence,  constituted  not  by  sufferings,    not  by  any 
thing  which  answered  in  the  room  of  punishment,  not 
by  any  thing  which   is  the    ground  of  pardon,  but  by 
the  merit  of  obedience,  and  consisting  in  a  claim  to  a 
reward,  obtained  the  gift  of  faith  for  the  elect. 


CHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  33 

Not  only  are  we  led  to  this  conclusion  by  the  gene- 
ral chain,  but  there  is  something  in  almost  every  link 
which  indicates  the  same  thing. 

(1.)  The  measure  in  question  is  an  atonement.  From 
the  accepted  use  of  its  English  name  I  draw  an  argu- 
ment. To  atone,  in  every  one's  mouth  is  to  make 
amends  for  an  offence,  that  the  offender  may  be  par- 
doned as  he  is,  or  is  capable  of  being,  not  that  the  ap- 
peased may  fit  him  for  pardon. 

(2.)  The  measure  is  a  cover  for  sin  :  but  what  has 
a  cover  for  sin  to  do  with   securing   the  gift  of  faith  ? 
Where  no  sin  exists  God  is   not  obliged  to  sanctify, 
unless  he   has  bound  himself  by  covenant.     When  no 
sin  existed  in  heaven  or  Eden,  he  ceased  to  sanctify, 
because  he  had  not  promised  to  continue  his  influence. 
When  sin  was  actually  covered,  so  far  as  it  bore  on 
the  question  of  sanctification,  that  is,  when  the  penalty 
of  abandonment  was  taken  wholly  away,  he  was  under 
no  obligation  to  bestow  the   gift  of  faith.     One  hin- 
derance  to  sanctification  was  thus  removed,  but  no  ob- 
ligation to  sanctify  was  created.     And  this  is  not  all. 
The  mere  cover  for  sin  could  not  even  render  the  gift 
of  faith  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law.     Some- 
thing more  than   the  absence  of  sin  was  required  of 
Adam,  after  he  had  entered  upon  existence,  to  render 
the  exertion  of  sanctifying  influence   upon  his   heart 
consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law.     He  must  have 
a  positive  righteousness,   perfect  for  the  time  he  had 
been  in  existence,  and  the  influence  must  be  a  token 
-that  he  was  thus   far  approved;  for  the  moment  he 
ceased  to  be  approved,  the  law  forbid  the  influence  to 
be  continued      After  his  probation,  had  he  remained 
faithful,  the  influence  would  have  been  for  ever  grant- 
ed to  ;         md   his  seed  as  the  reward   of  a    perfect 
right.,  Aad  the  honour  of  the  law  required 


84  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  I. 

that  it  should  not  be  bestowed  in  any  other  way.  The 
same  principle  still  exists  :  and  as  men  have  not  a 
perfect  obedience  to  show,  even  after  the  sin  of  diso- 
bedience is  covered,  (including  all  the  disobedience 
of  omission  itself.)  they  can  never  be  sanctified  but  as 
the  reward  of  Christ.  After  sin  is  covered  a  defect 
remains,  not  caused  by  sin  or  the  presence  of  positive 
evil,  but  by  the  absence  of  positive  good  :  and  that 
defect  the  righteousness  of  Christ  must  supply.  The 
mere  cover  for  sin  therefore,  so  far  from  securing  the 
gift  of  faith,  could  not  even  render  it  consistent  with 
the  honour  of  the  law.  It  could  only  remove  the  pe- 
nal bar  which  stood  in  the  way. 

It  is  equally  evident  that  a  cover  for  sin  could  only 
affect  the  relations  of  moral  agents.  If  it  covers  si?i} 
it  only  covers  what  an  agent  has  done  ;  for  the  passive 
have  not  sinned.  If  its  whole  effect  and  tendency  is 
to  cover  sin,  it  stretches  itself  over  none  but  agents, 
and  exhausts  all  its  virtue  upon  their  relations.  If  it 
had  respect  to  the  relation  which  sinners  bore  to  the 
law, — if  its  tendency  was  to  free  from  condemnation 
and  punishment  in  a  way  not  injurious  to  the  law,  its 
whole  aspect  was  upon  agents  ;  for  none  but  agents 
bore  any  relation  to  law,  condemnation,  punishment, 
or  pardon.  No  relations  but  those  of  agents  could 
possibly  be  affected  by  a  cover  for  sin,  except  so  far 
as  the  penalty  of  abandonment,  which  agents  had  in- 
curred, excluded  impressions  from  the  passive.  But 
even  this  indirect  effect  on  the  passive  was  produced 
by  changing  the  relations  of  agents,  by  removing  a 
penal  bar  which  they  had  raised  against  themselves. 

The  cover  for  sin  then  could  touch  none  but  agents. 
It  produced  all  its  effects  by  changing  their  relations. 
Of  course  it  was  designed  for  no  other  purpose.  W  e 
know  from  the  shape  of  the  garment  for  whom  it  was 


tfHAP.  V.J  RECONCILIATION.  83 

intended.  It  was  never  provided  for  men  as  passive, 
but  for  men  as  active.  And  now  if  the  atonement  is 
that  cover,  it  was  never  offered  or  accepted  for  mere 
recipients  of  sanctifying  impressions,  but  for  moral 
agents ;  not  for  men  as  active  and  passive  both ;  not 
at  once  to  render  their  sins  pardonable  and  to  obtain 
for  them  the  gift  of  faith ;  but  merely  to  be  the  ground 
of  their  release  from  both  parts  of  the  curse.  Be  the 
number  for  whom  it  was  offered  greater  or  less,  it  was 
offered  for  them  only  as  agents,  to  take  away  the  pe- 
nalty of  abandonment  which  they  as  agents  had  incur- 
red, and  to  render  pardonable  the  sins  which  they  as 
agents  had  committed.  To  this  I  add,  that  it  was 
offered  and  accepted  with  an  express  understanding 
that  it  should  be  applied  to  them  for  pardon  only  when 
as  agents  they  should  believe  :  and  thus  the  enjoyment 
of  it  was  not  secured  to  them  as  passive  and  motion- 
less, but  was  suspended  on  their  own  act  as  a  sine 
qua  non,  an  act  which  they  were  in  duty  bound  to 
perform.  The  only  operation  which  it  had  on  the 
elect  themselves,  besides  removing  the  penalty  of 
abandonment,  was  to  render  their  pardon  consistent 
with  the  honour  of  the  law  when  they  as  agents  should 
perform  a  reasonable  duty  by  believing.  And  this 
makes  it  out  to  be  neither  more  nor  less,  (as  it  related 
to  pardon,)  than  a  provision  for  moral  agents.  No 
matter  if  by  another  influence  that  effort  of  their  agen^ 
cy  was  secured ;  the  atonement  itself,  so  long  as  the 
enjoyment  of  it  depended  on  their  own  conduct,  was  a 
mere  provision  for  moral  agents. 

(3.)  The  atonement,  as  it  stood  related  to  p?rdon, 
was  adapted  to  come  in  the  room  of  punishment  and 
to  answer  the  same  end ;  and  besides  removing  the 

H 


.36  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  I. 

curse  of  abandonment,  it  had  no  other  use*.  But  it 
could  not  answer  the  end  of  the  punishment  of  a  man 
viewed  otherwise  than  as  already  a  believer.  Faith 
must  exist  then  before  it  could  accomplish  any  part  of 
Vhat  it  was  adapted  to  accomplish  in  relation  to  par- 
don. It  was  no  part  of  its  office  therefore  to  secure 
the  existence  of  faith. 

No  substitute  whatever  could  answer  the  end  of  the 
punishment  of  continued  transgressors.  This  end  is 
to  show  that  God  will  punish  sin,  and  to  avoid  the  evil 
of  shielding  continued  transgression.  But  no  substi- 
tute, by  protecting  Judas  in  his  mad  career,  could  con- 
vince the  universe  that  God  wrould  punish  sin,  or  pre- 
vent the  evil  of  shielding  continued  transgression,  but 
would  accomplish  the  very  thing  it  was  guarding 
against.  There  would  have  been  an  end  to  be  answer- 
ed by  the  punishment  of  men,  (besides  a  literal  exercise 
of  justice,)  had  they  repented  and  no  atonement  had 
been  provided  for  them  ;  and  that  would  have  been  to 
support  the  authority  of  the  law  by  showing  that  God 
would  punish  sin.  That  end  of  the  punishment  of  the 
penitent  and  reformed,  the  atonement  can  answer.  But 
there  is  another  end  to  be  accomplished  by  punishing 
obdurate  transgressors  ;  and  that  is  to  avoid  casting 
a  shield  over  those  who  continue  to  trample  the  law  in 
the  dust.  This  end  no  atonement  can  answer  so  as 
to  supply  the  place  of  the  punishment  of  such :  for  the 
moment  it  attempts  to  do  this,  it  accomplishes  the 
very  evil  it  was  intended  to  prevent.  All  that  an 
atonement  could  do  that  was  to  answer  exactly  the  end 
of  punishment,  was  to  answer  the  end  of  the  punish- 

*  I  use  punishment  here  for  that  part  of  the  threatened  evil  which  is 
aet  aside  hy  pardon.  The  curse  of  abandonment  was  really  a  part  of 
punishment;  but  for  want  of  another  term,  and  to  avoid  circumlocu- 
tion, I  am  obliged  to  use  the  word  here  in  this  restricted  sensea 


CHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  87 

nient  of  a  sinner  already  reformed.  It  could  have  no 
influence  therefore  to  reform  hirn.  As  certainly  then 
as  the  cover  for  sin,  (the  ground  of  acquittal  from  the 
curse,)  besides  removing  the  penalty  of  abandonment, 
could  do  no  more  than  answer  the  end  of  punishment, 
the  atonement  could  not  secure  the  gift  of  faith.  And 
its  being  adapted  to  answer  the  purpose  of  the  punish- 
ment of  a  man  whenever  he  will  believe,  constitutes  it 
in  relation  to  him  a  provision  for  a  moral  agent. 

But  the  theory  which  assigns  to  the  atonement  a 
power  to  obtain  sanctifying  grace,  wanders  out  of  the 
way  and  draws  in  an  influence  which,  instead  of  an* 
swering  the  end  of  punishment,  (for  the  merit  of  one, 
we  have  seen,  cannot  answer  the  end  of  the  punish- 
ment of  another,)  lays  claim  to  a  reward.  That  merit 
by  which  faith  is  obtained,  can  in  no  degree  come  in 
the  room  of  punishment  and  help  to  constitute  a  provi- 
sion for  moral  agents  in  relation  to  pardon. 

(4.)  The  atonement  was  made  by  sufferings,  or  at 
most  by  sufferings  combined  with  the  testimony  of  obe- 
dience :  but  what  influence  have  sufferings-,  or  suffer- 
ings and  testimony  united,  detached  from  the  merit 
which  claims  a  reward,  to  obtain  the  gift  of  faith  ?  Or 
to  look  at  the  thing  more  generally,  how  can  suffering 
for  another  what  he  deserves  to  suffer,  make  him  holy  ? 
To  intercept  a  stroke  aimed  at  another,  may  ward  it 
off  from  him,  but  what  has  that  to  do  with  changing 
his  heart  ? 

(5.)  The  atonement  removed  the  legal  impediments 
to  pardon.  But  this  position,  which  will  be  allowed 
to  describe  the  proper  office  of  the  atonement,  does 
not  carry  the  idea  that  it  removed  the  bar  which  un- 
belief raises,  but  the  obstructions  which  past  sins  have 
caused  and  which  faith  cannot  put  away;  not  those 
which   arise  from   rejecting  the   Gospel,   but    those 


38  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  \, 

which  have  arisen  from  breaking  the  law.  I  shall 
show  presently  that  this  was  all  that  the  *)£)D  of  the 
Old  Testament  accomplished. 

The  influence  which  removes  the  legal  impediments 
to  pardon  is  identically  that  which  is  the  ground  of 
pardon,  and  becomes  the  ground  merely  by  removing 
the  impediments.  But  the  merit  which  secures  the 
gift  of  faith  does  not,  as  we  have  seen,  answer  the  end 
of  punishment  so  as  to  become  the  ground  of  pardon. 
Nor  does  the  claim  which  it  supports  on  God  for  a  gift, 
render  pardon  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law. 
The  gift  itself  is  no  part  of  the  ground  of  remission. 
In  the  public  instrument  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  the 
exercise  of  faith  is  made  the  condition  of  pardon  ;  but 
even  that  is  not  the  ground :  much  less  is  the  gift  of 
faith,  and  still  less  can  a  claim  to  that  gift,  or  the  merit 
which  supports  the  claim,  be  that  ground. 

If  then  the  atonement  is  that  which  removes  the  le? 
gal  impediments  to  pardon,  and  thus  becomes  the 
ground  of  remission,  it  is  entirely  distinct  from  the  in- 
fluence which  secures  the  gift  of  faith. 

(6.)  The  atonement  is  that  which  satisfies  God  as 
Protector  of  the  authority  of  the  law.  In  that  charac- 
ter, (and  in  that  only  can  the  satisfaction  be  predicated 
of  him,)  he  was  satisfied  when  the  end  of  the  punish- 
ment of  believers,  (and  of  men  in  no  other  character 
can  it  be  said,)  was  so  answered  that  the  law  was  safe 
though  they  were  pardoned.  That  satisfaction  of 
course  had  nothing  to  do  with  making  believers.  It 
was  the  state  of  finding  the  sufferings  to  have  answer- 
ed the  end  of  the  punishment  of  men,  (whether  appli- 
cable to  the  whole  or  a  part,)  viewed  as  already  believ- 
ing, or  the  state  of  finding  the  sins  of  believers  par- 
donable. That  satisfaction  certainly  was  not  pro- 
duced by  any  merit  supporting  a  claim  on  the  Father 


CHAP.  V.}'  RECONCILIATION.  83 

for  an  influence  to  make  believers,  for  they  are  already 
believers.  Besides,  to  establish  a  claim  against  a 
person,  is  a  strange  way  to  satisfy  him  for  an  offence. 
To  oblige  another  to  satisfy  me,  is  not  to  satsify  him. 
It  was  not  merit,  as  we  have  seen,  which  reconciled 
remission  with  the  honour  of  the  law  ;  and  certainly  it 
was  not  a  claim  to  the  gift  of  faith  which  rendered  the 
sins  of  believers  pardonable.  Nor  could  it  result  from 
that  satisfaction,  in  itself  considered,  that  faith  would 
ever  be  bestowed.  Because  the  sins  of  believers  were 
pardonable,  it  did  not  follow  that  God  was  bound  to 
make  men  believe.  And  that  which  so  secured  the 
law  as  to  make  the  sins  of  believers  pardonable,  fully 
satisfied  the  Protector  of  the  law.  If  the  law  was  safe 
he  had  gained  his  point,  and  had  not  to  wait  for  a 
claim  to  be  established  against  himself  before  he  could 
be  satisfied.  He  was  satisfied  in  the  security  of  his 
law  if  never  called  upon  to  bestow  a  gift  on  men.  And 
that  relation  of  things  which  satisfaction  implied,  was 
complete  though  none  were  ever  to  believe  ;  for  though 
none  ever  believed,  it  would  still  be  true  that  believ- 
ers might  be  pardoned  without  injuring  the  law. 

If  then  atonement  was  the  influence  which  satisfied 
the  Protector  of  the  law,  and  rendered  the  sins  of  be- 
lievers pardonable,  it  was  not  atonement  which  secure 
ed  the  gift  of  faith. 

(7.)  The  gift  of  faith  to  the  elect  was  Christ's  re- 
ward, conferred  for  the  merit  of  his  obedience  "  unto 
death,"  that  is,  for  making  atonement.  There  is  a 
distinction  to  be  set  up  between  the  atonement  and  the 
reward  for  making  atonement,  no  less  clear  than  be- 
tween a  day's  work  and  its  wages.  And  there  is  an 
equal  distinction  to  be  drawn  between  the  influence  of 
the  atonement  and  the  claim  to  the  reward,  no  less  ob- 
vious than  between  tne  influence  of  a  physician  upoa 
H2 


30  ATONEMENT  NOT  fpAUT  U 

his  patient  and  his  title  to  a  fee.  Atonement  exerted 
its  influence  upon  God's  law,  and  spread  itself  as  a 
covering  over  sinning  agents  ;  the  claim  of  Christ  ex- 
erted  itself  upon  God's  promise,  and  stood  related  to 
passive  receivers  of  sanctifying  impressions.  The  in- 
fluence of  the  atonement  was  a  cover  which  men  might 
carry  home  with  them,  and  wrap  around  them ;  the 
claim  of  Christ  remained  in  himself,  and  could  not  be 
transferred.  The  influence  of  the  atonement  upon  the 
elect  themselves,  (allowing  them  to  have  been  the 
only  objects,)  was  distinct  from  the  claim  of  Christ  to 
their  renewal  and  consequent  salvation. 

But  you  say,  all  this  is  not  what  we  mean.  We 
admit  that  the  influence  which  secures  the  gift  of  faith 
is  no  part  of  that  which  answered  the  end  of  punish- 
ment, which  removed  the  legal  impediments  to  pardon, 
which  satisfied  the  Protector  of  the  law  in  relation  to 
the  remission  of  sins,  which  is  the  ground  of  pardon, 
which  spent  itself  on  the  relations  of  moral  agents,  and 
constituted  a  provision  for  them.  All  this,  we  a  >it, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  actual  gift  of  faith.  But 
then  the  cover  of  sin  cannot  accomplish  its  end  till  sin 
is  covered  or  pardoned ;  and  it  cannot  secure  pardon 
unless  it  obtains  the  gift  of  faith.  We  must  therefore 
^ive  the  word  a  wider  meaning,  and  apply  it  to  a 
sufficient  part  of  Christ's  influence  to  secure  that  gift. 
But  where,  I  ask,  is  the  authority  for  this  ?  Not  in  the 
name ;  for  that,  we  have  seen,  cannot  decide  whether 
the  thing  is  the  cover  of  sin,  or  only  a  cover  for  sin. 
Where  then  is  the  proof  that  atonement  by  its  own 
separate  influence  secures  actual  pardon  ?  You  say, 
"  The  Hebrew  word  for  atonement  signifies  to  cover  ; 
and  when  sins  in  the  Old  Testament  are  spoken  of  as 
atoned,  the  meaning  always  is  that  they  were  covered, 
removed,  never  to  be  charged  on  the  person  who  com-- 


CHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  91 

mitted  them.  A  transaction  which  only  renders  it. 
possible  for  sin  to  be  pardoned  is  no  atonement,  what 
ever  else  it  may  be*." 

This  is  a  point  not  to  be  passed  over  without  a  dis- 
tinct examination.  Every  one  acquainted  with  the 
Hebrew  language  knows  that -the  same  word  runs  into 
different  meanings,  preserving  some  general  analogy 
to  the  original  one,  but  going  off  through  several  gra- 
dations until  resemblance  is  almost  lost;  and  that  two 
or  more  branches  of  meaning  sometimes  start  from  the 
same  root,  subdividing  into  other  ramifications.  The 
radical  meaning  of  15^,  the  Hebrew  word  for  atone- 
ment, is  to  cover.  From  this  root  several  branches 
proceed,  one  of  which  relates  to  atonement.  I  will 
exhibit  three  uses  of  the  word,  and  leave  it  to  the 
reader  to  judge  whether  they  belong  to  the  same 
"branch. 

I.  It  is  used  in  its  primary  sense,  and  without  any- 
express  reference  to  the  typical  expiations.  Thus  it 
signifies  to  cover  or  blot  out  a  covenantf,  to  cover  or 
blot  out  sin  by  pardon\.  And  hence  it  is  used  for  a 
disposition  to  pardon,  a  merciful  temper  and  conduct 
towards  offenders  § ;  and  hence  for  a  reconciled  state 
of  feeling||.  Is  it  certain  that  either  of  these  uses  of 
the  word  has  any  reference  to  the  application  of  the 
same  word  to  the  typical  expiations  ?  Supposing  the 
English  name  for  atonement  was  cover,  and  you  should 
read,  "  Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is  forgiven, 

*  A  manuscript  which  has  been  transcribed  by  many  hands  and 
widely  circulated,  must  be  considered  so  far  published  as  to  be  the  pro- 
per subject  of  remark,  and  liable  to  be  quoted,  though  without  a  refer- 
ence or  a  name.  This  is  my  vindication  for  those  quotations  through 
the  book  which  acknowledge  no  author. 

f  is.  28.  18 %  Deut.  21.  8.    2Chron.  30.    18.  Ps.  65.  3.  &  78, 

38.  &  7^.  9.  Prov.  16.  6.  I«f.  6.  7,  &  22. 14,  &  27.  9.  Jer.  13.  23, 

§  Eeuc.  21.  8. {J  Ezek,  16,  63, 


82  ATONEMENT  NO*  fpART  I. 

whose  sin  is  covered^  would  you  certainly  infer  that 
the  term  in  this  verse  was  derived  from  the  name  of 
the  atonement,  or  had  any  reference  to  it  ?  If  not,  the 
above  uses  of  the  word  throw  no  light  on  the  meaning 
of  *1£D  when  applied  to  the  atonement 

II,  It  is  used  in  two  senses,  (evidently  borrowed 
from  the  expiations,  but  applied  to  other  matters,)  for 
a  means  or  operation  effectual  or  ineffectual  as  the 
ease  might  be. 

(1.)  The  general  idea  suggested  by  those  expiations 
was  that  of  life  offered  for  life  that  the  latter  life  might 
be  preserved.  Whether,  that  the  life  might  be  pre- 
served absolutely,  or  only  that  there  might  be  a  pro- 
vision to  preserve  it,  to  take  effect  upon  certain  condi- 
tions, was  of  no  importance  as  respected  the  general 
character  of  the  transactions.  In  either  way  there  was 
life  offered  for  life  that  life  might  be  preserved.  This 
was  enough,  (which  ever  way  it  was,)  to  give  curren- 
cy to  the  use  of  the  word  for  whatever  was  offered  to 
God  or  man  in  lieu  of  life,  whether  absolutely  or  other- 
wise ;  for  it  was  npt  the  absoluteness  or  conditionality 
of  the  offerings  which  connected  them  with  the  word, 
but  their  being  in  one  way  or  other  offered  for  life. 
Hence  the  word  is  used  to  denote  a  ransom  given  in 
the  room  of  life  to  cover  or  shield  life  :  and  sometimes, 
where  human  qualifications  were  not  necessary,  or 
were  supposed  to  exist,  the  ransom  is  contemplated  as 
taking  absolute  effect* :  in  other  instances  it  is  sup- 
posed to  be  frustrated  through  some  imperfection  in 
the  character  or  state  of  him  for  whom  it  was  offered!. 

(2.)  The  general  idea  suggested  by  those  expia- 
tions was  that  of  appeasing  wrath.     Whether  they  re- 


*  E  .  30.    2, 15, 16.  P-ov.  13.  8.  and  21.  18,  Is.  43.  3. 1  Job  30. 

18.  Ps.49.  7.  Prov.  6.  35, 


CHAP.  V.J  RECONCILIATION.  93 

conciled  absolutely,  or  were  only  a  provision  for  re* 
conciliation,  applicable  where  the  offender  was  duly 
prepared,  was  of  no  importance  as  respected  the  ge- 
neral character  of  the  transactions.  In  either  way 
there  was  a  design  or  tendency  to  appease  wrath. 
This  was  enough,  (which  ever  way  it  was,)  to  bring 
the  word  into  use  in  the  common  affairs  of  life  to  ex- 
press what  is  meant  by  the  English  term  appease*. 

III.  It  is  used  to  denote  the  ceremonial  expiations 
themselves.  These  expiations  were  effectual  in  two, 
and  only  two,  cases:  (1.)  where  no  faith  was  requir- 
ed or  was  possible,  as  in  those  instances  where  inani- 
mate things  were  ceremonially  purged!  :  (2.)  where 
faith  existed,  or  was  supposed  by  the  temporal  Head 
of  that  nation  to  exist.  In  the  case  of  individuals,  the 
very  act  of  offering  was  a  profession  of  faith,  and  set 
forth,  not  so  much  the  abstract  power  of  the  atone- 
ment, as  a  Christian's  approach  to  God  through  a  Me- 
diator, and  the  success  that  would  follow.  When  a 
Hebrew  brought  his  lamb  to  the  priest  to  be  offered 
for  his  sins,  it  answered  to  a  Christian's  bearing  Christ 
in  the  arms  of  his,  faith  to  God,  and  saying,  Here  is 
my  Lamb  for  a  burnt-offering.  And  that  reconcilia- 
tion will  follow  such  an  act,  is  what  no  one  denies. 
In  regard  to  those  general  atonements  for  the  whole 
congregation  which  may  be  supposed  to  have  turned 
away  temporal  judgments,  let  it  be  remembered  that 
they  were  offered  for  a  nation  of  professed  believers. 
And  if  those  pictures  of  the  real  atonement-could  turn 
away  temporal  wrath  from  the  visible  Church,  it  only 
taught  us  that  the  atonement  itself  will  turn  away 
eternal  wrath  from  true  believers.  Not  only  a  gene- 
ral profession  of  faith,  but  special  humiliation  must 

*  Gen.  32.  20.    Prov.  16.  14.-— ■!  Lev,  16.  20.    Num.  35.  33.    Es, 
-13.  20,  26.  and  45.  20. 


94  ATONEMENT    NOT  [PART  IV 

combine  with  those  national  expiations  to  give  them 
any  effect.  The  great  day  of  atonement  was  always 
a  day  of  fasting,  humiliation,  and  prayer  ;  and  without 
these  accompaniments  it  would  have  been  of  no  vali- 
dity*. 

Thus  where  a  real  or  visible  faith  existed,  the  cere- 
monial expiations  had  a  correspondent  effect :  but  did 
they  always  accomplish  reconciliation  ?  What  means 
then  that,  oath,  "  I  have  sworn  unto  the  house  of  Eli 
that  the  iniquity  of  Eli's  house  shall  not  be  purged 
with  sacrifice  nor  offering  forever!"  ?  Could  they  ever 
avail  without  the  co-operation  of  a  visible  faith  ?  What 
mean  then  those  terrible  reproofs,  u  I  will  take  no  bul- 
lock out  of  thy  house,  nor  he-goats  out  of  thy  folds." 
"  To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  ? 
— I  am  full  of  the  burnt-offerings  of  rams,  and  the  fat 
of  fed  beasts ;  and  I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bul- 
locks, or  of  lambs,  or  of  he-goats. — Wrho  hath  required 
this  at  your  hands  ?  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations  : 
incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me :  the  new  moons 
and  sabbaths,  the  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away 
with  ;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meeting.  Your 
new  moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hateth ; 
they  are  a  trouble  unto  me,  I  am  weary  to  bear  themj"  ? 
And  how  came  it  to  pass  that  these  expiations  did  not 
reconcile  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  ? 

Certainly  then  the  ceremonial  expiations  accom- 
plished nothing  but  where  faith  was  impossible  and 
not  required,  or  where  it  was  supposed  to  exist.  Or 
if  they  took  a  man  from  a  state  of  condemnation  and 
reconciled  him  to  God,  they  surely  obtained  for  him 
the  gift  of  faith.  The  great  and  decisive  question  then 
is,  did  the  *l£D  of  the  Old  Testament  obtain  the  gift 
of  faith  ?  It  certainly  did  not.     Here   1  plant  my  foot. 

*  Lev,  23.27. 1  1  Sara.  3.  14. %  Ps.  50.  Isai.  1.. 


G-HAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION,  95 

Show  me  a  single  instance  in  which  these  expiations- 
were  made  with  any  such  intent.  Where  is  the  chap- 
ter and  verse  ?  They  were  never  offered  to  procure 
holiness,  but  only  to  obtain  pardon.  So  far  from  be- 
ing designed  to  ensure  faith,  they  always  supposed  its 
existence,  and  had  no  effect  where  it  was  not. 

And  now  see  how  the  argument  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament is  shaped.  Because  the  *)£0  of  that  dispen- 
sation reconciled  where  faith  was  not  necessary  or  pos- 
sible, or  where  it  was  supposed  to  exist,  the  atonement 
must  reconcile  even  where  it  has  to  bring  faith  with  it 
for  the  purpose.  And  for  this  end  a  power  must  be 
given  it  to  obtain  faith,  though  it  never  had  that  power 
in  one  of  the  instances  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  though  neither  the  gift  of  faith  naturally  follows  a 
cover  for  sin,  nor  can  merit,  by  which  the  gift  is  ob- 
tained, constitute  that  cover  by  answering  the  end  of 
punishment.  No,  the  whole  .analogy  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament lies  against  this  conclusion.  If  then  you  apply 
the  name  of  atonement  to  that  part  of  Christ's  influ- 
ence which  secures  the  gift  of  faith,  you  contradict  all 
the  instances  in  which  the  term  is  used  in  the  Bible*. 

The  conclusion  is,  that  the  atonement  neither  en^ 
sures  faith  by  its  own  proper  influence,  nor  accom- 
plishes reconciliation  without  it. 

The  great  mistake  on  this  subject  has  arisen  from 
confounding  the  different  influences  which  meet  in  the 
death  of  Christ.  That  death,  including  the  consent  of 
the  Sufferer,  is  to  be  viewed  in  two  lights  ;  as  an  aton- 
ing sacrifice,  and  as  the  highest  act  of  obedience. 
And  yet  the  merit  of  that  obedience,  as  constituting  a 
claim  to  a  reward,  is  confounded  by  the  writers  on  the 
other  side  with  the  atonement.  And  then  they  raise 
tije  question,  whether  the  death  of  Christ  obtained  the 

*  The  wprd  in  Rom.  5.  11.  is  not  Bible  but  translation. 


96  ATONEMENT  NGT  [PART  I* 

gift  of  faith  for  the  elect  and  thus  accomplished  actual 
reconciliation.  We  fully  acknowledge  that  it  did ; 
and  thus  the  dispute  ends.  But  when  we  say  this  we 
do  not  make  the  same  acknowledgment  respecting  the 
atonement.  The  merit  of  Christ's  obedience  "  unto 
death"  certainly  obtained  the  gift  of  faith,  and  in  union 
with  his  expiation,  accomplished  reconciliation  for  the 
elect ;  but  merit  made  no  part  of  the  atonement. 

Dr.  Owen,  and  other  writers  on  that  side,  constant- 
ly bring  up  the  question  about  the  death  and  ransom  of 
Christ,  and  whether  redemption  was  universal.  We 
certainly  have  no  dispute  with  them  on  this  point. 
Says  Dr.  Owen,  "  Redemption,  which  in  the  Scrip- 
ture is  Xurgwrfis  sometimes,  but  most  frequently  ewroXy7£w- 
<frs,  is  the  delivery  of  any  one  from  captivity  and  mise- 
ry by  the  intervention,  (Xut£*,)  of  a  price  or  ransom. 
That  this  ransom  or  price  of  our  deliverance  was  the 
blood  of  Christ,  is  evident.  He  calls  it  Xur^ov,  Mat. 
20.  28.  and  av7iXu*$ov,  1  Tim.  2.  6.  that  is,  the  price  of 
such  redemption*," 

I  have  no  objection  to  all  this,  except  a  small  inac- 
curacy in  the  last  sentence.  Nothing  is  said  in  the 
texts  referred  to  about  the  blood  of  Christ.  I  admit 
however  that  redemption,  in  thejarger  sense,  is  our 
deliverance  from  the  bondage  both  of  sin  and  death ; 
that  it  was  accomplished  by  the  larger  ransom  ;  and 
that  this  ransom  is  sometimes  called  the  blood  of  Christ. 
But  Xur£ov,  when  used  for  the  larger  ransom,  ex- 
presses more  than  ""5D  did  when  standing  for 
rttonementt.     It  occurs  no  where  but  in   the  above 


•  Salus  Electorum.  p.  174.     Falkirk  Ed. 

1"  ^33-  when  meaning  a  ransom,  is  translated  xurgoy  by  the  LXX. 
(Exod  21.  30.  and  30.  12.  Num.  35.  31,  32.  Prov.  6.  35.  and  13.  8.) 
But  this  Greek  v.  ord,  like  the  corresponding  English  term,  expresses  a 
price  which  may  either  be  absolute  or  conditional.     There  is  nothing  in 


CHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  fft 

quoted  text,  and  in  the  parallel  one  in  Mark.  "  The 
Son  of  man  came — to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many." 
av=r»Xu<r£ov  occurs  no  where  but  in  the  passage  above 
referred  to.  "  Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all." 
But  the  kindred  words  are  of  more  frequent  occur- 
rence. Xur^wtfis  appears  thrice.  "  He  hath  visited  and 
made  redemption  for  his  people."  "  All  them  that 
looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem."  "  By  his  own 
blood  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having 
obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us.*"  wiedkvrguftg  oc- 
curs ten  times.  It  is  used  to  denote  redemption  from 
Jewish  persecution,  from  the  pains  of  martyrdom, 
from  the  grave,  and  from  all  evil  at  the  last  dayf. 
The  other  passages  are  as  follows.  "  Justified  freely 
by  his  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus 
Christ."  "  Who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and 
righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption." 
"  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins."  "  By  means  of  death  for  the  re- 
demption of— transgressions]:."  The  corresponding 
verb  carries  the  idea  to  a  redemption  from  the  power 
of  sin,  which  *l£D  never  expressed.  "  Who  gave  hin> 
self  for  us  that  he  might  redeem,  (ransom,  "kur^rflai,) 
us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar 
people  zealous  of  good  works."  "  Forasmuch  as  ye 
know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed,  (ransomed,  eXurgwfy7g,J 
with  corruptible  things  as  silver  and  gold  from  your 
vain  conversation  received  by  tradition  from  your  fa- 
thers, but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a 
lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot ;  who — was  ma- 

it  to  limit  it  to  the  absolute  sense  :  and  we  shall  see  that  this  and  other 
words  of  a  similar  nature  are  used  in  a  lower  and  conditional  sense  in 
the  New-Testament. 

*  Luke  1.  68.  and  2.  38.  Heb.  9.  12. 1  Luke  21.28.  Rom.  8.  23. 

Eph.  1.  14.  and  .4.  30.    Heb.  11.  35. J  Rom,  3.  24.    1  Cor.  1.  30, 

Eph.  1.  7.  Col.  1. 14.  Heb.  9.  15. 

I 


98  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  I. 

nifest  in  these  last  times  for  you  who  by  him  do 
believe  in  God*."  The  same  idea  is  brought  out 
where  the  Xur^ov  or  ransom  is  not  expressed.  "  Who 
gave  himself  for  our  sins  that  he  might  deliver  us  from 
this  present  evil  world."  "  Christ  also  loved  the 
Church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word  ; 
that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church, 
not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but  that 
it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish."  "  For  their 
sakes  I  sanctify  myself,  [devote  myself  to  die,]  that 
they  also  might  be  sanctified  through  the  truth!." 
Thus  by  his  obedience  "  unto  death"  he  obtained  a 
right  and  claim  to  deliver  the  elect  from  the  bondage 
of  sin  by  sanctifying  grace.  Hence  it  is  said  to 
Christians,  "  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price ;"  (tijuwjs 
*jyo£atf0*]7s.)  And  their  song  in  heaven  is,  "  Thou  wast 
slain  and  hast  redeemed,  {bought,  viyogartas,)  us  to  God 
with  thy  blood."  "  And  no  man  could  learn  that  song 
but  the  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand  which 
were  redeemed,  (oi  ^egewrjtew,)  from  the  earth. — These 
were  redeemed,  (r\yo£a<i6y\<iav,)  from  among  menj." 
Another  word  is  used  in  the  same  sense.  "  The 
Church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased,  (^isiro«jtfa7o,) 
-with  his  own  blood."  "  Ye  are  a  chosen  generation, 
— a  people  for  a  purchase  ;"  (Xaos  eg  vssQmntfw ;) 
meaning,  says  Parkhurst,  "  a  people  acquired  or  pur- 
chased to  himself  in  a  peculiar  manner§."  When 
therefore  you  contemplate  the  death  of  Christ  as  a 
whole,  including  both  expiation  and  the  merit  of  obe- 
dience, it  did  reconcile  the  elect  to  God.  "  It  pleased 
the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell,  and, 

*  Tit.  2.  14.  1  Pet.  1.  18—21. 1  John  17.  19.  Gal.  1.  4.  Eph.  5. 

25—27. %  1  Cor.  6.  20.  and  7.  23.    Rev.  5.  9.  and  14,  3.  4. 

(f  Acts  20.  28.  1  Pet.  2.  9. 


JHAP.  V.]  RECONCILIAOIOtt.  99 

{having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,) 
by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself;  by  him,  I 
say,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth  or  things  in  hea- 
ven. And  you  that  were  sometime  alienated  and  ene- 
mies in  your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he 
reconciled  in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to 
present  you  holy,  and  unblameable,  and  unreprovable 
in  his  sight*." 

*  Col.  1.  19 — 22.  Reconciliation  is  never  ascribed  to  a  less  cause 
than  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  whole  ;  and  it  means,  I  think,  the  mere 
destruction  of  enmity  between  the  parties,  without  reference  to  any 
thing  positive,  except  as  a  necessary  consequence.  This  noun  and  its 
kindred  verb  are  used  in  our  translation  of  the  New-Testament  four- 
teen times.  In  one  instance,  (Rom.  5.  11.)  the  noun  ought  to  have 
appeared  where  atonement  is  used  ;  and  in  one  instance,  (Heb.  2.  17.) 
the  verb  appears  where  to  atone  ought  to  have  been  used.  Fourteen 
times  then  these  words  ought  to  have  appeared,  and  fourteen  times, 
and  no  more,  the  corresponding  Greek  words  are  found  in  the  New- 
Testament.  In  six  places  K*rr&KKa.<T7u  is  used ;  (Rom.  5.  10.  twice. 
1  Cor.  7.  11.  2  Cor.  5.  18, 19,  20.)  in  four,  its  derivative  noun  K&rx\~ 
hotyt ;  (Rom.  5.  11.  and  11.  15.  2  Cor.  5.  18,  19.)  in  three  ct7rcKZT*h~ 
Kx<rTa>i  (Eph.  2.  16.  Col.  1.20,  21.)  and  in  one  JW\*<ro-a> ;  (Mat.  5. 
24.)  all  derived  from  a.Khx.o-crus,  which  signifies  to  change.  The  cause 
to  which  the  effect  is  ascribed,  appears  only  in  the  following  passages. 
"  We  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son."  (Rom.  5.  10.) 
"It  pleased  the  Father, — (having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his 
cross,)  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself. — And  you — hath  he 
reconciled  in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death.''''  (Col.  1.  19 — 22.) 
"  That  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross." 
(Eph.  2.  16.)  The  meaning  of  the  word  seems  limited  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  enmity  between  the  parties  in  the  following  passages.  "  Go  thy 
way,  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother."  (Mat.  5.  24.)  "  Let  her— 
he  reconciled  to  her  husband."  (1  Cor.  7.  11.)  "In  Christ  Jesus  ye 
who  sometimes  were  far  off  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For 
he  is  om peace  who  hath  made  both  [Jews  and  Gentiles]  one, — having 
abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity, — to  make  in  himself  of  twain  one  new 
man,  so  making  peace;  and  that  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God  in 
one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity  thereby;  and  came  and 
preached  peace."  (Eph.  2. 13— .17.)  "  It  pleased  the  Father,— (having 
made  peace  by  the  blood  of  his  cross,)  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto 
himself. — And  you  that  were  sometime  alienated  and  enemies  in  your 
mind, — hath  he  reconciled."  .  (Col.  1.  19 — 21.)     While  we  were  yet 


100  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  h 

We  can  now  understand  what  is  meant  by  the  larger 
ransom.     By  giving  himself,  devoting  himself  to  die, 
and  actively  laying  down  his  blood,  Christ  obtained  as 
firm  a  claim  to  the  redemption  of  his  elect  from  the 
bondage  of  siny  (and  so  from  that  of  death  through  his 
expiation,)  as  a  man  could  have  to  the  release  of  cap- 
tives, who  had  paid  by  contract  a  mighty  ransom  for 
their  redemption  ;  while  the  blood  laid  down,  was  that 
out  of  respect  to  which,  as  the  honour  of  the  law  was 
concerned,    the    Father   consented  to   their    release, 
These  two  parts  were  sufficient  to  constitute  a  com- 
plete "KvTgov.     A  ransom  has  two   influences  ;  it  sup- 
ports the  claim  of  the   redeemer,  and  it  is  that  out  of 
respect  to  which  the  holder  of  the  captives  lets  them  go. 
Let  the  ransom  of  Christ  possess  this  double  influence, 
and  it  comprehends  in  its'  matter  all  that  was   active 
and  passive  in  his  voluntary  death,  and  in  its  power, 
not  only  the  whole  efficiency  of  the  atonement,  but  his 
entire  claim  to  that  reward  which  consisted  in  the  re- 
lease  of  the  captives  from  both  parts  of  their  bondage, 
or  his  perfect  right  to  sanctify  and  lead  them   forth 
from  punishment.     The  part  of  the  ransom  which  sup- 
ported his  claim,  was  the  giving  or  sanctifying  of  him- 
self, as  it  is  expressed  four  times  in  the  above  quota- 
tions ;  but  the  part  which  the  Father  respected  as  the 
ground  of  the  release,  was  the  blood  and  life  laid  down. 

sinners  Christ  died  for  us;  much  more  then  being  justified  by  his 
blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him.  For  if  when  we  were 
enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more 
being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  [from  wrath]  by  his  life."  (Rom. 
5.  8 — 10.)  "  Who  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and 
hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,  to  wit,  that  God  was  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespassed 
•unto  them,  and  hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation. 
Now  then — we  pray  you  in  Christ's  stead,  be  yr.  reconciled  to  Getf." 
(2  Cor.  5. 18— 20.) 


CHAP.   V.]  RECONCILIATION.  101 

Thus  he  actively  "  gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might 
redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,"  but  "  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law  [by]  being  made,  [passively,]  a 
curse  for  us*." 

The  lower  ransom  was  the  blood  of  Christ  laid  down 
for  a  moral  agent,  to  deliver  him  from  death  if  he  on 
his  part  would  accept  the  offer.  "  I  exhort— that — 
supplications — be  made  for  all  men  ; — for  this  is  good 
and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour,  who 
will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to  come  unto  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  :  for  there  is  one  God,  and  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Je- 
sus, who  gave  himself  a  ransom,  (av<nXur£ov?)  for  allt." 
"  Even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought,  (ayogu&avlu,) 
them,  and  bring  upon  themselves  swift  destructionj." 
The  latter  word  is  the  same  that  expresses  the  purchase 
of  believers  in  the  following  passages  :  "  Ye  are  bought 
with  a  price."  "  Thou  wast  slain  and  hast  redeemed 
us  to  God  with  thy  blood."  "  The  hundred  and  forty 
and  four  thousand  which  were  redeemed  from  the 
earth."  The  higher  ransom  then  is  that  which  effects 
deliverance  from  sin  and  death ;  the  lower  ransom  is 
the  means  of  deliverance,  dependant  for  its  effect  on 
the  conduct  of  men.  The  higher  ransom  comprehends 
both  expiation  and  merit ;  the  lower  ransom  is  nothing 
but  the  atonement.  In  this  lower  sense  redemption- 
was  as  general  as  the  means,  and  might  be  accepted 
or  refused§. 

But  how,  if  the  whole  claim  of  Christ  rested  on  the 
merit  of  his  obedience,  did  he  purchase  the  Church 
with  his  "  blood"  ?  And  how  are  we  "  redeemed"  fronj 
our  "  vain  conversation — with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot"  ? 

*  Gal.  3.  13.  Tit.  2.  14.— t  1  Tim.  2.  1—6.— t  2 Pel.  2.  1 m 

§  Heb.  11.  35, 

I  2 


102  ATONEMENT  NQT  [PART  I. 

This  will  appear  to  be  a  very  natural  figure,  (for 
"  purchased"  is  certainly  figurative,)  when  we  consi- 
der in  how  many  respects  the  blood  resembled  a  pe- 
cuniary price*  It  was  the  thing  laid  down  upon  the 
board.  It  was  the  very  thing  which  he  was  command- 
ed to  lay  down,  with  a  promise  that  if  he  would  lay 
down  that  precise  thing  he  should  have  a  redeemed 
seed ;  and  by  laying  it  down  he  purchased  them. 
What  gave  it  a  greater  resemblance  to  a  pecuniary 
price,  the  thing  laid  down  was  really  useful  to  the 
government  of  the  other  Party.  And  there  was  a  rea- 
son for  calling  it  "  precious,"  with  an  implied  com- 
parison with  other  prices  of  less  value.  The  self-de- 
nial, which  as  the  test  of  obedience  really  created  the 
claim,  was  in  proportion  to  the  thing  laid  down,  just  as 
it  is  in  proportion  to  the  sum  of  money  paid  in  a  pur- 
chase. Compared  then  with  other  tests  of  obedience, 
the  blood  supported  a  greater  claim,  as  of  a  thing  more 
precious ;  and  by  its  claim  and  self-denial  united,  it 
resembled  a  vast  treasure  paid  to  purchase  some  va- 
luable good.  It  had  another  point  of  resemblance* 
A  price  has  no  claim  till  it  is  accepted  ;  and  the  blood 
of  Christ  had  no  claim  separate  from  that  covenanted 
acceptance  which  the  merit  of  his  obedience  procured. 
That  merit  in  reality  created  the  whole  claim,  but  it 
did  it  by  laying  down  that  blood.  Here  lies  the  dif- 
ference from  an  ordinary  purchase.  In  the  latter  case 
the  money,  abstracted  from  the  character  of  him  who 
offers  it,  and  from  all  merit  in  laying  it  down,  com- 
mands the  article.  In  the  other  case  the  blood,  ab- 
stracted from  the  merit  of  obedience,  obtains  nothing. 
This  discrepancy  must  be  admitted  upon  every  plan : 
for  who  will  say  that  the  blood  alone,  separated  from 
the  obedience  which  attended  it,  obtained  the  sancti- 
fication  and  pardon  of  the  elect  ?     The  blood,  though, 


CflAP.  V.]  RECONCILIATION.  103 

it  went  into  the  larger  ransom  as  the  ground  of  the  re- 
lease, really  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  claim  but  as 
the  mere  test  of  obedience. 

The  only  difficulty  arises  from  our  being  said  to  be 
redeemed  from  thepozver  of  sin  by  the  blood  of  the  un- 
blemished Lamb.  Here,  you  say,  obedience  is  distinctly 
referred  to,  but  as  having  no  other  power  than  to  qua- 
lify the  Victim.  And  the  inference  is,  that  the  atone- 
ment itself  secured  the  gift  of  faith.  We  have  already 
contemplated  the  active  form  of  this  expression,  (viz. 
that  Christ  purchased  the  Church  with  his  own  blood,) 
and  found  no  difficulty  in  it ;  and  if  it  had  been  added, 
with  his  own  spotless  blood,  it  would  have  created  no 
more  difficulty  ;  for  that  was  certainly  understood. 
Christ  purchased  the  Church  and  redeemed  it  from 
iniquity  with  his  own  spotless  blood,  as  of  a  lamb 
without  blemish.  We  see  how  by  a  slight  figure  this 
could  be  said  in  perfect  consistency  with  our  system. 
Now  Peter  only  leaves  out  the  Purchaser,  and  throws 
the  sentence  into  &  passive  form,  and  with  these  two 
alterations  expresses  the  same  thing.  "  Ye  were — 
redeemed — from  your  vain  conversation — w7ith  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  ble- 
mish." Who  was  the  Redeemer  ?  Introduce  his  asren- 
cy  so  as  to  give  the  sentence  an  active  form,  and  how 
will  it  read  ?  Christ  hath  redeemed  you  from  youF 
vain  conversation  with  his  own  precious  blood,  as  of  a 
Iamb  without  blemish.  And  this  is  just  what  we  had 
before.  Peter  did  not  intend  to  deny  the  influence  of 
Christ's  merit  in  this  redemption  ;  but  using  a  passive 
form,  he  had  no  way  to  bring  it  in.  Had  he  expressed 
the  same  idea  in  an  active  form,  he  might  have  said, 
Christ,  by  obediently  yielding  his  spotless  life,  claim- 
ed and  accomplished  the  sanctification  of  his  elect,  and 
obtained  this  reward  and  influence  by  giving  "himself* 


104  ATONEMENT  NOT  [PART  ft 

for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet- 
smelling  savour." 

As  in  this  place  the  whole  seems  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  passion  of  the  unblemished  Lamb,  so  in  the  10th 
of  Hebrews  every  thing  seems  imputed  to  the  action 
of  the  Priest;  and  while  we  are  contemplating  the 
Priest,  he  at  once  becomes  a  King.  (ver.  13.)  It 
could  not  be  expected  that  the  apostles  would  pre- 
serve all  the  nice  classifications  of  systematic  writers. 
Their  business  was  with  the  multitude,  and  they  often 
throw  the  subject  upon  the  imagination  and  heart  in  a 
rich  and  affecting  confusion.  It  is  not  from  such  in- 
sulated passages  that  we  are  to  gather  systems.  We 
must  compare  scripture  with  scripture,  and  build  our- 
selves upon  the  analogy  of  faith. 

Thus  if  you  confound  the  influences  which  meet  in 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  ask  what  that  death  accom- 
plished, we  answer,  reconciliation  for  the  elect.  If 
you  ask  about  the  higher  ransom,  that  redeemed  all 
for  whom  it  was  offered.  But  if  you  ask  about  the 
atonement  or  lower  ransom,  that,  even  viewed  as  ac- 
cepted of  God,  did  no  more  for  the  elect  themselves 
than  to  remove  the  curse  of  abandonment,  and  to  ren- 
der it  certain  that  they  would  be  pardoned  if  they 
would  believe ;  making  out  thus,  as  relates  to  pardon, 
a  mere  provision  for  moral  agents.  This  must  be  the 
limit  of  the  atonement  if  it  did  not  secure  the  gift  of 
faith. 

Whether  it  was  in  fact  an  atonement  for  all,  (inten- 
tionally or  otherwise,)  depends  therefore  on  the  ques- 
tion, whether  it  had  these  two  effects  upon  all.  But 
for  this  question  we  are  not  yet  prepared. 


GHAP.  VI.]  RECONCILIATION,  1Q« 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    MEANING   OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS   AS  CONNECTED  WITH 
THE  JUSTIFICATION   OF  BELIEVERS. 

The  original  and  literal  meaning  of  righteousness 
is  perfect  personal  holiness.  Used  in  reference  to  the 
subject  about  which  we  are  inquiring,  it  means  neither 
more  nor  less  than  that  which  gives  a  title  to  justified* 
tion,  not  of  debt,  but  according  to  God's  gracious  co- 
venant, to  the  utter  exclusion  of  boasting.  Sometimes 
the  term  seems  to  denote  that  which  is  the  condition  of 
justification,  but  more  generally  that  which  is  the 
ground.  The  manner  in  which  the  word  slid  into  this 
use  is  obvious.  Under  the  first  covenant  both  the 
condition  and  ground  of  justification  were  a  literal 
righteousness,  or  unsullied  holiness.  That  was  the 
natural  mode  of  justification  :  and  in  that  process  the 
term  justification  was  used  in  its  original  and  literal 
meaning,  to  denote  a  legal  sentence  that  the  person 
respected  was  just.  Hence  it  became  a  familiar  truth 
that  a  righteousness  was  necessary  to  justification, 
and  bore  to  it  the  relations  both  of  a  condition  and  a 
ground.  When  the  new  method  of  accepting  men 
was  introduced,  it  was  natural  to  refer  to  the  former 
method  as  the  standard,  and  to  borrow  its  terms.  The 
acceptance  itself,  though  far  from  being  legal,  was 
called  justification ;  and  to  preserve  consistency,  that 
which  is  the  ground  of  acceptance,  (and  I  think,  also, 
that  which  is  the  condition,)  was  called  a  righteous- 
ness. The  terms  thus  applied  are  plainly  used  out  of 
their  original  meaning  ;  for  the  gracious  acceptance 
of  a  sinner  is  certainly  not  a  legal  process.  The  jus- 
tification is  not  by  works  of  the  law,  and  of  course,  the 


106  MEANING  OP 


PART 


righteousness  which  gives  a  title  to  it  is  not  a  legal 
righteousness. 

In  this  way  it  has  come  to  pass  that  whatever  under 
the  new  covenant  gives  a  title  to  a  gracious  justifica- 
tion, is  called  our  righteousness,  and  the  man  who 
possesses  it  is  denominated  righteous.  That  this  is  the 
ease  the  following  passages  will  show. 

"  Surely  shall  one  say,  In  the  Lord  have  I  righteous- 
ness ; — in  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be  jus- 
tified*." 

"  By  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified. —  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God,  [of  God's 
ordaining,]  without  the  law,  is  manifested, — even  the 
righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ. 
- — Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace. — Where  is  boast- 
ing then  ? — Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law. — If  Abra- 
ham were  justified  by  works  he  hath  whereof  to  glory. 
— But  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed 
God  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness. 
Now  to  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward  not  reckoned 
of  grace  but  of  debt ;  but  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but 
believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousness.  Even  as  David  also  de- 
scribed the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God 
imputeth  righteousness  without  works  5  saying,  Blessed 
are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins 
are  covered :  blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord 
will  not  impute  sin.  [To  impute  righteousness  then, 
is  not  to  impute  sin,  or  in  plain  words,  to  forgive.] — 
We  say  that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  right- 
eousness ; — and  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision, 
the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith, — that  he  might 
be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe, — that  righteous- 

*  Ft.  45.  24,  25. 


I 


CHAP.  VI.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  1(>7 

ness  might  be  imputed  unto  them  also. — For  the  pro- 
mise— was  not  to  Abraham  or  his  seed  through  the 
law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith. — It  is  of 
faith  that  it  might  be  by  grace. — It  was  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness :  now  it  was  not  written  for  his 
sake  alone  that  it  was  imputed  to  him,  but  for  us  also 
to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed  if  we  believe  on  him  that 
raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead ;  who  was 
delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was  raised  again  for 
ouv  justification.  Therefore  being  justified  by  faith, 
we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. — As  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were 
made  sinners,  [were  condemned,]  so  by  the  obedience 
of  One  shall  many  be  made  righteous,  [shall  possess 
that  which  entitles  them  to  justification :  this  is  the 
sole  idea,  and  makes  the  antithesis  complete.] — To 
whom  ye  yield  yourselves  servants  to  obey,  his  ser- 
vants ye  are  to  whom  ye  obey,  whether  of  sin  unto 
death,  or  of  obedience  unto  righteousness,  [unto  that 
which  secures  justification  of  life,  as  the  antithesis  re- 
quires.]— The  Gentiles  which  followed  not  after  right- 
eousness, [a  course  of  conduct  acceptable  to  God,] 
have  attained  to  righteousness,  [that  which  entitles  to 
justification  or  acceptance  with  God,]  even  the  right- 
eousness which  is  of  faith.  But  Israel  which  followed 
after  the  law  of  righteousness,  [the  law  by  which  they 
hoped  to  be  justified,]  hath  not  attained  to  the  law  of 
righteousness, V  [could  not  be  justified  by  the  law,  or, 
hath  not  attained  to  the  rule  or  method  of  justifica- 
tion*.] 

"  A  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but 
by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ : — for  if  righteousness  come 
by  the  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain. — Abraham  be- 
lieved God  and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteous- 

*  Rom,  3.  20—28.  and  4.  and  5.  1?  19.  and  ver,  16.  and  9.  30,  31.- 


108  MEANING  ©P  [PART  I. 

ncss. — The  Scripture,  foresting  that  God  would  jus* 
tifiy  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  Gos- 
pel unto  Abraham. — That  no  man  is  justified  by  the 
law — is  evident,  for  The  just  shall  live  by  faith. — If 
there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could  have  given 
life,  verily  righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  law. 
— The  law  was  our  school-master  to  bring  us  to  Christ, 
that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith. — Christ  h  become 
of  none  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified 
by  the  law.- — We  through  the  Spirit  wait  for  the  hope 
of  righteousness  by  faith*." 

"  The  Scripture  was  fulfilled  which  saith,  Abraham 
believed  God  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteous- 
.jiess,  and  he  was  called  the  friend  of  God.  Ye  see 
then  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
faith  onlyt." 

The  G;  spel  is  called  "  the  word  of  righteousness,5-' 
and  "  the  ministration  of  righteousness,"  in  opposition 
to  "  the  ministration  of  condemnation,"  because  it  re- 
peals the  ground  and  condition  of  justification]:. 

From  these  passages  it  plainly  appears  that  by 
righteousness  is  meant  nothing  more  than  that  which 
under  the  gracious  covenant  of  God  gives  a  title  to 
justification ;  a  title  in  no  sense  legal,  by  no  means 
founded  on  justice,  but  purely  of  grace,  to  the  utter 
exclusion  of  boasting ;  that  to  be  "  made  righteous" 
by  Christ,  is  only  to  be  entitled  by  him  to  a  gracious 
justification  ;  that  to  impute,  reckon,  or,  account  faith 
for  righteousness,  is  to  accept  it  in  the  room  of  a  lite- 
ral righteousness ;  that  to  impute  righteousness  to  a 
man,  is  not  to  impute  sin,  in  plain  words,  to  forgive,  or 
in  a  larger  sense  to  confer  on  him  a  title  to  a  gracious 

*  Gal.  2.  16,  21.  and  3.  and  5.  4,  5. 1  James  2.  23,  24. J  2 

Cox.  3.  0.    Ileb.  5.  13. 


SNAP.  VI.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  109 

reward ;  and  that  to  impute  to  one  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  is  merely  to  justify  him,  or  treat  him  as 
righteous,  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  the  Re- 
deemer. 

That  this  term  was  derived  from  the  first  covenant, 
and  is  used  of  course  under  the  second  in  a  figurative 
sense,  appears  more  evident  from  its  being  used  under 
the  second,  as  under  the  first,  to  denote  both  the  ground 
and  condition  of  justification.  It  more  generally  ex- 
presses the  ground,  which  is  no  other  than  the  atone- 
ment and  obedience  of  Christ*  ;  but  if  I  mistake  not, 
it  sometimes  denotes  the  condition,  or  that  personal 
qualification  which  for  the  sake  of  Christ  is  graciously 
accepted  in  the  room  of  a  literal  righteousness.  The 
sincere  but  imperfect  obedience  of  Israel,  (in  which 
however  faith  was  unquestionably  included,)  was  de- 
nominated their  righteousness.  The  zeal  of  Phinehas 
"  was  counted  unto  him  for,  [in  the  room  of,]  right- 
eousness." Abraham  "  believed  the  Lord,  and  he 
counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness!."  It  is  several 
times  repeated  in  the  New-Testament  that  Abraham's 
faith,  (a  personal  qualification,)  was  reckoned  to  him 
for  righteousness,  instead  of  righteousness,  or  as  being 
what  a  literal  righteousness  was  under  the  first  cove- 
nant, a  condition  of  justification.  -  Circumcision  was 
"  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith"  or  a  seal  of  the 
promise  that  faith  should  be  accounted  for  righteous* 
ness,  or  be  accepted  as  the  condition  of  justification!. 

*  Is.  42.  21.  and  45.  24,  25.  and  54.  17.  and  61.   10,  11.  and  62. 

I,  2.     Jer.  23.  6.  and  33.   16.     Dan.  9.  24.     Rom.  5.  21.  and  10.  3-^ 

II.  1  Cor.  1.  30.  Phil.  3.  9. 1  Gen.  15.  6.     Deut.  6.  25.  and  24. ' 

13.     Ps.  1C6.31. 

|  If  it  should  be  thought  that  this  opinion  is  not  warranted  by  tha 
passages  quoted,  I  shall  not  contend  'for  it,  as  it  is  not  material  to  any 
part  of  the  system.  I  see  nothing  however  unnatural  or  dangerous  in 
it:  but  the  evidence  is  before  the  reader. 

K 


110  MEANING  OF  [PART  T. 

Thus  it  would  seem  that  as  under  the  first  covenant 
both  the  ground  and  condition  of  justification  were  a 
literal  righteousness,  so  under  the  second  covenant 
the  ground  and  condition  of  justification  are  figura- 
tively called  by  the  same  name  ;  not  because  they  are 
the  same  thing,  (for  then  justification  would  be  of  debt 
and  not  of  grace,)  but  because  they  fill  the  same  place 
in  the  matter  of  justification.  On  the  whole,  it  seems 
undeniable  that  righteousness  means  neither  more  nor 
less  than  that  which  gives  a  complete  title  to  justifica- 
tion "  by  grace,"  Of  course  to  make  one  righteous 
through  Christ,  or  to  impute  to  him  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  is  to  invest  him,  not  with  a  personal  claim 
€n  justice,  but  with  a  title  to  a  free,  gracious,  unmerit- 
ed justification  through  the  righteousness  of  his  Re- 
deemer. It  is  to  secure  to  him  the  privilege,  not  of 
being  considered  literally  righteous,  (for  he  is  not,  and 
God  views  things  as  they  are,)  but  of  being  treated  as 
righteous. 

The  strongest  figure,  I  believe,  in  the  Bible  to  coun- 
tenance the  idea  that  believers  have  in  Christ  a  literal 
righteousness,  and  a  real  claim  on  justice,  is  found  in 
Rom.  8.  3,  4.  "  What  the  law  could  not  do  in  that  it 
was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  his  own  Son 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned 
sin  in  the  flesh  ;  that  the  righteousness  of  the  laio  might 
be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after 
the  Spirit."  To  understand  this  passage  it  is  neces- 
sary to  take  up  the  connexion  of  the  whole  Epistle. 
In  the  first  five  chapiers  the  apostle  had  been  support- 
ing the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law.  In  the  last  verse  of  the  third  chap- 
ter he  had  started  the  objection,  "  Do  we  then  make 
void  the  law"  as  a  rule  oi  life  ?  and  had  dismissed  it 
with  this  brief  reply,  "  God  forbid !  yea  we  establish 


«HAP.  VI.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  Ill 

the  law."  In  the  sixth  chapter  he  resumes  the  objec- 
tion, and  shows  that  conformity  to  the  law  is  necessa- 
rily implied  in  that  union  to  Christ  by  which  we  are 
justified.  In  the  seventh  chapter  he  pursues  the  same 
general  subject,  and  explains  the  end  which  the  law 
subserves,  and  the  relation  which  believers  bear  to  it. 
The  eighth  chapter  opens  with  an  inference  from  these 
two  subjects  united,  viz.  justification  by  faith  alone, 
and  the  necessity  of  holiness :  "  There  is  therefore 
now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in  Christ 
Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  Spirit, 
For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  hath 
made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death  :  [the 
Gospel  has  delivered  me  both  from  the  dominion  and 
condemnation  of  sin.]  For  what  the  law  could  not  do 
in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God,  sending 
his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin, 
condemned  sin  in  the  flesh ;  that  the  righteousness  of 
the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk  not  after  the 
flesh  but  after  the  Spirit."  As  though  he  had  said,  all 
©ur  past  and  present  sins  being  covered  by  the  atone^ 
ment  of  Christ,  and  all  the  defect  of  our  obedience  by 
his  obedience ;  and  we  being  brought  back  to  honour, 
love,  and  obey  the  law,  or  as  he  had  said  in  another 
place,  to  "  keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law,"  and  to 
"  obedience  unto  righteousness*  ;"  it  is,  to  all  the  pur- 
poses of  honouring  the  law  and  completing  our  title  to 
justification,  as  though  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  or 
a  legal  righteousness,  had  been  fulfilled  in  us.  No 
other  can  be  the  meaning ;  for  it  would  contradict  the 
plain  argument  of  the  whole  Epistle  to  affirm  that  the 
best  Christian  on  earth  possesses  a  legal  righteous- 
ness, or  has  in  any  way  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
literally  fulfilled  in  him.     The  expression  is  obviously 

*  Cbap.  2.  26,  &  6.  16. 


ilS  MEANING  OP  [PART  I. 

figurative,  like  that  in  which  the  same  apostle  speaks 
of  filing  up  "  that  which  is  behind  of  the  afflictions  of 
Christ— for— the  Church*." 

*  Col.  1.  24.  Some  have  a  shorter  way  of  getting  over  this  text, 
affirming  that  by  the  righteousness  of  the  law  fulfilled  is  us  is  meant 
no  more  than  that  we  "  keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law."  But  the 
connexion  between  the  3d  and  4th  verses  seems  to  intimate  that  the 
atonement  had  something  to  do  with  this  fulfilment  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  law  in  us. 

I  have  made  no  account  of  that  well  known  passage  in  the  85tb 
Psalm,  "  Mercy  and  truth  are  met  together,  righteousness  and  peace 
.have  kissed  each  other ;"  because  there  are  reasons  to  doubt  whether. 
righteousness  in  this  place  means  any  tiling  more  than  faithfulness. 
Long  before  the  days  of  David,  "  the  righteous  acts  of  the  Lord," 
meant  those  dispensations  of  providence  which  manifested  his  mercy 
and  truth*.  But  in  consequence  of  the  more  express  and  ample  cove-: 
nant  engagements  with  David  and  his  house,  such  terms  are  more  fre- 
quently found  in  the  Psalms,  and  generally  mean  the  covenant  mercy 
or  faithfulness  of  Godt.  "  God  of  my  righteousness,"  appears  to 
mean,  "God  of  my  mercy^."  "Let  them  not  come  into  thy  right- 
eousness," that  is,  into  thy  favour}.  "I  will  make  mention  of  thy 
righteousness,  even  of  thine  only  ;"  that  is,  of  thy  faithfulness||.  The 
fruit  of  mercy  is  once  expressed  by  the  same  termlT.  After  David's 
time,  righteous  and  righteousness  were  often  used  in  the  same  sense  by 
ether  prophets** :  and  the  practice  is  followed  even  by  the  writers  of 
the  New-Testamenttt.  A  fair  specimen  of  this  phraseology  may  be 
seen  in  the  two  following  passages :  "  God,  [who,  it  is  stated  in  the 
context,  had  bound  himself  by  promise,]  is  not  unrighteous  to  forget 
your  work  and  labour  of  love."  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faith- 
ful s.nd  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins."  In  the  same  spirit  Paul  saysj 
"  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which 
the  Lord,  the  righteous  Judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day." 

This  explanation  of  the  passage  receives  considerable  support  from 
its  structure.  It  is  common  in  Hebrew  poetry  for  the  latter  line  of  a 
distich  to  echo  the  sense  of  the  former,  with   a  small  variation  in  the 

*  Judges  5.  11.     1  Sam.  12.  7. 1  Ps.  5.  8.  and  31.  1.  &  35.  24, 

28.  &  36.  6.  10.  &  40.  9,  10.  &  51.  14.  &  71.  2,  15,  16,  19.  ft  88. 12.  & 
89.  16.  &  92.  15.  &  103.  17.  &  112.  4.  ft  116.  5.  and  119.  40,  123,  142. 

and  143.  1,  11.  and  145.  7. J  Ps.  4.  1.  and  59.  10,  17. fr  Ps.  69. 

27. 1|  Ps.   71.  15,  16. H  Ps.  24.  5. **  Ez.  9.  15.  Is.  41.  10. 

and  42.6.  and  46.  13.  and  6ii.  1.  Dan.  9.   16.  Mic.   7.   9. it  John 

7.  18.  Rom.  3.  3—7.  2  Thes.  2.  10,  12.  2  Tim.  4.  8.  JM  6 
TO— 20.     2  Pet.  1.1.     1  Johnl.  9. 


CHAP.  VI.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  113 

But  this  is  not  the  only  figurative  expression  which 
has  received  a  literal  construction.  Indeed  the  prac- 
tice of  confounding  the  figurative  with  the  literal  mean- 
ing is  so  fruitful  a  source  of  mistake  that  it  deserves  a 
particular  consideration. 


— *+h* — 
CHAPTER  Vir. 

MISTAKES    ARISING    FROM    DRAWING    LITERAL    CONCLW» 
SIONS    FROM    FIGURATIVE    PREMISES. 

There  are  certain  figurative  expressions  in  common 
use  in  the  Church,  partly  derived  from  the  Scriptures 
and  partly  of  human  invention,  which  are  calculated  to 
present  to  the  imagination  in  a  summary  and  striking 
manner,  without  the  process  of  reasoning,  the  general 
influence  of  Christ's  mediation.  This  advantage  gives 
them,  (at  least  a  part  of  them,)  a  claim  to  be  retained 
in  our  prayers  and  popular  discourses.  But  the  diffi- 
culty is  that  they  have  been  introduced  into  logical 
discussions  with  a  literal  meaning,  and  as  premises 
from  which  literal  conclusions  are  drawn.  This  has 
been  one  of  the  most  prolific  sources  of  mistake. 

The  expressions  are  such  as  these  ;  that  Christ  pur- 
shased  the  Church,  that  he  paid  their  debt,  that  he  is 
one  with  them,  that  their  sins  were  imputed  to  him5 
that  he  bore  the  curse  of  the  law  in  their  stead,  that  he 
-satisfied  divine  justice  for  them,  that  his  righteousness 

words  or  their  order  for  the  sake  of  euphony.  On  this  principle 
righteousness  in  the  latter  line  is  of  the  same  import  with  truth  in  'he 
former,  and  exactly  answers  to  the  tetm  faithfulness.  "Mercy  and 
truth  are  met  together ;  faithfulness  and  peace  have  kissei  each 
other,"  " 

K   2 


il4  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I* 

is  imputed  to  them,  and  that  they  are  considered  right- 
eous. 

It  is  said  in  Scripture,  "  Ye  are  bought  with  a 
price  ;"  and  hence,  as  if  ransom  was  used  but  in  a  sin- 
gle sense,  it  is  inferred,  "  As  is  the  ransom  must 
be  the  release. — Were  redemption  universal,  salva- 
tion would  and  must  be  of  equal  extent*."  And 
as  if  the  whole  was  a  commercial  transaction,  it  is 
alleged  that  just  enough  was  paid  in  a  way  of  atone- 
ment to  redeem  a  certain  number,  and  that  this  num- 
ber can  claim  a  release  of  justice  itself.  "  If  Christ 
fully  paid  the  price  of  redemption  for  all  and  each, 
then  all  and  each  ought  to  be  saved,  and  none  ought 
to  perisht."^ 

Because  Christ  answered  the  purpose  of  our  punish- 
ment, men  have  chosen  to  say  that  he  paid  our  debt  : 
and  from  that  expression,  manifestly  figurative  and  of 
human  invention,  they  have  gone  on  to  infer,  as  though 
the  whole  transaction  was  of  a  pecuniary  nature,  that 
he  became  the  Bondsman  of  a  certain  number,  and 
brought  himself  under  obligations  to  law  and  justice  to 
discharge  their  debt,  and  actually  paid  it  in  kind;  and 
that  they,  as  exonerated  debtors,  have  a  claim  on  jus- 
tice to  a  release.  "  He  paid  the  full  debt  of  all  for 
whom  he  was  Surety,  and  he  secures  the  eternal  re- 
demption of  every  one  for  whom  he  made  the  pay- 
ment." "  He  did  not  undertake  to  see  their  debt  paid 
and  satisfaction  made  by  some  means  or  other,  as 
bondsmen  commonly  bind  themselves  for  their  friends 
in  joint  securities  in  order  to  strengthen  their  credit^ 


*  See  a  popular  little  book  entitled  Gethsemane,  published  first  in 
London,  and  republished  in  Philadelphia,  with  high  recommendations, 
in  1817,  (containing  extracts  from  many  writor.-.}  P-  21. 

t  The  delegates  from  Zealand  in  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Acts  *f 
Synod,  Part  III.  p.  166. 


CHAP.  VII. J  LANGUAGE.  11$ 

always  presuming  that  these  bonds  will  be  discharged 
in  whole  or  in  the  greatest  part  by  the  debtors  them- 
selves :  no,  he  took  the  whole  debt  and  the  whole  guilt 
of  his  lost  sheep  upon  himself  alone."  "  He  thai  un- 
dertaketh  for  another  man's  debt  maketh  it  his  own. 
and  standeth  chargeable  with  it  as  if  it  were  his  own 
personal  debt :  so  Christ,  becoming  Surety  for  our  sins, 
made  them  his  own,  and  so  was  punishable  for  them 
as  if  they  had  been  his  own  personal  sin."  He  "was 
held  in  the  same  obligation  which  we  were  under ;  he 
paid  the  same  debt  that  we  did  owe  :  the  curse  or  pu- 
nishment wrhich  we  deserved  was  inflicted  upon  him." 
"  The  grand  question  here  is,  for  whom  was  Christ 
Surety  ?  wThose  debt  did  he  pay  ?  whose  freedom  did 
he  procure  ?  Let  the  event  declare  this  :  for  certainly 
Christ  did  not  die  in  vain,  or  purchase  deliverance  and 
yet  lose  the  price  he  paid,  or  any  part  of  the  purchase 
he  made  ;  for  this  wrould  be  contrary  to  all  the  rules  of 
justice  and  righteousness."  "  His  death  had  had  no 
relation  to  us  had  not  our  sin  been  juridically  adjudged 
to  be  his ;  nor  can  we  challenge  an  acquittance  at  the 
hand  of  God  for  our  debts,  if  they  were  not  our  debts 
that  he  paid  on  the  cross*." 

It  is  said  in  Scripture,  "  They  two  shall  be  one 
flesh  :  this  is  a  great  mystery ;  but  I  speak  concerning 
Christ  and  the  Church f."  And  hence  it  is  inferred 
"  that  there  is  such  an  intercommunity  of  relation  be- 
tween the  Saviour  and  his  redeemed,  as  forms  a  just 
reason  for  regarding  them  as  one  in  a  federal  and  legal 
sense."  "  Another's  act  cannot  be  mine,  either  in 
profit  or  loss,  if  there  be  not  a  legal  oneness  between 

us.]:." 

It  is  said  in  Scripture,  "  He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin 


*  Gethsemane  p.  42,  55,    73,  91,  152. 1  Eph.  5.  31,   32, — - 

|  Geth.  p.  66,  80. 


116  FIGURATIVE  [PART  t. 

for  us."  "  Who  bis  own  self  bore  our  sins  in  bis  own 
body  on  the  tree."  "And  unto  them  that  look  for 
him,  shall  be  appear  the  second  time  without  sin  unto 
salvation."  And  hence  it  is  inferred  that  in  the  eye 
of  law  and  justice  he  was  actually  a  sinner  by  imputa- 
tion, bearing  upon  him  by  a  legal  transfer  all  the  sins 
of  the  elect,  and  no  more  ;  that  he  "  took  upon  him 
their  persons,"  "  sustained  our  persons*  ;"  in  short, 
that  sin  and  its  guilt  were  legally  imputed,  transferred, 
or  transmitted  to  him,  and  not  merely  the  effects  of  sin 
laid  upon  him.  "  Jehovah  laid  or  caused  to  meet  upon 
Christ  the  Surety,  not  the  punishment  only,  but  the 
iniquity  of  them  all."  "  Had  no  guilt  Iain  on  him  he 
might  have  suffered,  but  could  not  have  been  punish- 
ed.— What  is  this  being  made  sin  ?  Is  it  Christ's  being 
a  sacrifice  for  sin  ?  Yes  ;  but  that  is  not  all ;  it  notes 
also  his  being  under  the  guilt  of  sin."  "  It  is  not  the 
guilt  of  sin,  (as  guilt  means  only  our  obnoxiousness  to 
punishment,)  that  was  imputed  to  Jesus  Christ.  It 
seems  not  proper  to  speak  so.  But  sin  was  imputed  ; 
and  the  result  of  that  imputation  was,  guiltiness  in  the 
eye  of  the  law  and  vindictive  justice."  "  Persons  who 
are  hostile  to  this  doctrine  tell  us  that  it  was  not  sin 
itself  which  was  imputed  to  Christ,  but  the  effects  of 
sin.  But — the  apostle — is  not  speaking  of  the  effects 
of  sin,  but  of  sin  itself."  "  The  transferring  our  ini- 
quities upon  him  must  in  some  way  precede  his  being 
bruised  for  them,  which  could  not  be  any  oilier  way 
than  by  imputation,  whereby  he  was  constituted  by 
God  a  Debtor  in  our  stead  to  bear  the  punishment  of 
our  sin.  He  being  made  sin  for  us,  our  sin  was  in  a 
sort  made  his."  "  Unto  them  that  look  for  him,  tie 
shall  appear  the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation. 
— If  the  words  have  any  meaning,  surety  there  must 

*  Geth.  p.  49,  80. 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  117 

have  been  a  sense  in  which  when  on  earth  he  was  not. 
without  sin. — If  these  and  similar  expressions  do  not 
convey  the  idea  of  Christ's  dying  under  a  charge  of 
imputed  sin,  and  of  his  suffering  the  penalty  connected 
with  it,  they  have  no  meaning  at  all."  He  sustained 
"  that  curse  or  debt  of  suffering  which  attached  to  those 
on  whose  account  he  became  a  Surety,  whose  sins  were 
imputed  to  him,  and  with  which  he  became,  by  his  in- 
finitely gracious  and  voluntary  consent,  legally  charge- 
able." "  Their  iniquity  itself  was  laid  upon  him  bjr 
God  the  Judge  of  all,  and  he  was  regarded  by  his  holy 
Father  as  justly  chargeable  with  all  their  iniquity,  and 
transgression,  and  sin. — These  were  set  to  his  account 
in  law-reckoning,  and  laid  upon  him  as  their  Repre* 
sentative*." 

It  is  said  in  Scripture,  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us ;" 
and  hence  it  is  inferred  that  he  suffered  a  legal  punish- 
ment, and  was  adjudged  to  it  by  law  and  justice ;  a 
punishment  the  same  both  in  kind  and  degree  that  was 
due  to  all  the  sins  of  the  elect ;  that  had  he  atoned  for 
another  sin  he  must  have  suffered  more ;  and  that  his 
death  is  not  sufficient  for  the  pardon  of  one  of  the  non- 
elect.  "  The  way  in  which  Christ  was  to  justify  many 
was  by  bearing  their  iniquities  ;  but  if  he  did  not  en- 
dure by  way  of  punishment  all  that  these  iniquities  de- 
served, with  what  propriety  can  his  bearing  them  be 
assigned  as  a  ground  of  justification  ?  Sin  is  sin 
wherever  it  is  found,  whether  on  the  sinner  himself  or 
on  his  Substitute.  Its  being  transmitted  to  the  Sub- 
stitute does  not  lessen  its  malignity,  nor  render  punish- 
ment less  necessary.  The  sanction  of  the  divine  law 
is  irreversible  ;  it  will  have  its  course.  Punishment 
in  either  case  is  not  an  act  of  sovereignty,  but  of  jus- 
*  Getli. 


118  FIGURATIVE  [PART   f. 

tice."  "  That  the  death  of  Christ  was  a  death  of  un- 
exampled sufferings  cannot  be  doubted ;  but  they  were 
sufferings  to  which  he  became  liable  as  a  Surety,  and 
to  which,  in  virtue  of  his  own  voluntary  engagement, 
he  was  righteously  judged  by  the  law  and  justice  of 
God."  "  The  sufferings  of  our  blessed  Lord  were,  in 
consequence  of  his  own  voluntary  engagement,  a  debt 
due  to  divine  justice."  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  as 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us ; 
which  he  could  not  have  been  without  the  imputation 
of  sin,  and  his  enduring  whatever  was  included  in  that 
curse."  "  If  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord  were  not  pe- 
nal, there  can  be  no  salvation  for  apostate  man. — What 
will  these  sufferings  avail  if  there  was  nothing  penal  in 
them  ?  Mere  suffering  gives  a  right  to  nothing :  suffer- 
ing to  be  expiatory,  must  be  voluntary,  and  endured  as 
the  desert  of  imputed  sin."  "  Christ  is  said  to  be 
made  a  curse,  not  simply  because  he  suffered,  but  be- 
cause he  was  adjudged  to  his  sufferings,  that  thereby 
satisfaction  might  be  made  to  the  justice  of  God.  But 
if  sin  were  not  imputed  to  Christ,  he  could  not  be  the 
object  of  punitive  justice  ;  for  that  is  strange  justice 
that  can  be  satisfied  by  the  sufferings  of  a  person  no 
way  guilty  in  the  eye  of  justice."  "  Either  Christ 
suffered  the  wrath  of  God,  t.  e.  the  punishment  due  to 
the  sins  of  the  elect,  or  else  God  is  untrue  in  that  com- 
mination,  He  that  sins  shall  die."  u  To  imagine  that 
sin  can  escape  punishment,  is  highly  dishonourable  to 
the  moral  government  of  God.  For  as  moral  precepts 
are  a  transcript  of  the  holiness  and  rectitude  of  the  di- 
vine nature,  it  is  impossible  that  the  sanction  by  which 
infinite  justice  has  guarded  these  precepts,  should 
either  be  annulled  or  relaxed-"  "  To  me  it  appears 
self-evident,  either  that  Christ  must  have  sustained  the 
punishment  due  to  the  sinner;  or  the  law  have  relaxed 


GHAP.    VII.]  LANGUAGE.  119 

in  its  demands."     "  If  the  curse  of  the  divine  law  has 
not  been  borne  by  Christ,  we  are  still  in  our  sins,  and 
the  weight  of  that  curse  will  sink  us  into  endless  perdi- 
tion."    "  This   satisfaction  is  however  by  some  per- 
sons boldly  denied  ;  and  in   perfect   consistency  with 
this  denial,  it  is  said  that  our  blessed   Lord   was  not 
punished :  for  it  is  easy  to  see  that  if  the  doctrine  of 
satisfaction  be  allowed,  punishment  must  of  course  fol- 
low ;  for  without  punishment  there  can  be  no  satisfac- 
tion either  to  the  law  or  to  the  justice  of  God."     "  The 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him.     How  else 
could  his  heavenly  Father  [have]  been  pleased  to  bruise 
him,  for  whom  it  is  no  more  good  to  punish  the  just  than 
to  clear  the  guilty  ?"    "  If  our  iniquities  were  not  laid 
upon  Christ,  his  sufferings  could  not  be  punishment,  and 
therefore  not  satisfactory  :   for  where  there  is  no .  sin, 
either  actual,  inherent,  or  imputed,  there  can   be  no 
punishment,  and  of  course   no  expiation  of  guilt.     It 
was  no  more  possible  for  God  to   inflict  penal  suffer- 
ings  on  Christ  while  considered  in  every  respect  as 
perfectly  innocent,  than  it  was  for  him  to  deny  him- 
self."    "  It  has  been  asked,  may  not  God  punish  an 
innocent  creature  as  so  considered  ? — God  cannot  but 
approve  and  justify  an  innocent  creature  as  so  con- 
sidered ;  because  the  innocent  creature  is  what  God 
wills  him  to  be  according  to  his  law,  and  therefore  it 
is  impossible  he  should,   under  this  consideration,  be 
the  object  of  his   disapprobation.— -Hence  it  necessa- 
rily follows  that  an  innocent  creature,  as  so  consider- 
ed, cannot  be  impressed  with  a  piercing  sense   of  di- 
vine vengeance  against  sin.     A  perception   the  guilt- 
less creature  may  have  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  of  the 
wrath  of  God  which  sin  demerits  ; — but  this  is  not  at- 
tended with  any   anguish   or  pain  of  mind  ;  for  it  is 
only  a  sense  of  sin  as  charged  or  imputed,  and  of  ob- 


120  FIGURATIVE  [PARTI. 

noxiousness  to  divine  displeasure  on  that  account, 
which  can  give  the  soul  uneasiness  and  torture. — 
Each  of  these  things  enter  into  the  very  nature  of,  and 
are  essential  to,  divine  punishment.  Surely  it  is  not 
to  be  thought  that  God  approves  of  any  whom  he  pu- 
nishes, that  is  to  say,  as  they  are  the  subjects  of  his 
act  of  punishing  ;  and  it  is  impossible  that  a  creature 
tinder  the  same  consideration  should  be  the  object  of 
divine  condemnation  and  justification  ;  for  these  are 
certainly  inconsistent  ideas  if  any  such  there  be.  Nor 
can  God  impress  the  mind  of  a  creature  with  a  painful 
sense  of  his  wrath,  who  is  not,  under  any  consideration., 
'the  object  of  his  displeasure. "  "  What  God  hates  in 
man  he  cannot  do  himself.  Nothing  is  the  object  of 
God's  displeasure  but  what  is  contrary  to  die  divine 
nature.  To  punish  the  innocent  is  disapproved  of 
God,  because  it  is  a  dreadful  violation  of  right  and 
justice,  and  is  therefore  contrary  to  the  essential  right- 
eousness and  justice  of  God.  It  being  so,  he  cannot 
condemn  and  punish  without  a  righteous  charge  and 
imputation  of  the  offence."  "  Unless  the  guilt  of  our 
iniquities,  or  the  law  obligation  to  punishment  for 
them,  had  been  judicially  charged  upon  him,  it  seems 
to  me  that  he  could  not  by  any  rule  of  justice  have 
borne  their  punishment;  for  in  the  order  of  justice  our 
sins  must  first  be  supposed  to  be  placed  to  his  account, 
to  answer  for  them,  before  he  could  undergo  the  pro- 
per punishment  due  to  them;  since  divine  justice  can 
no  more  punish  the  entirely  and  in  all  respects  guilt- 
less, than  clear  the  guilty."  "  Our  Lord's  death  was 
penal,  and  the  vindictive  cause  of  it  was  the  judicial 
hand  of  God  :.  the  same  hand  avenges  sin  that  imputes 
it;  the  imputation  of  sin  and  the  punishment  of  it  al- 
ways following  one  another,  as  do  the  non-imputation 
of  it  and  an  exemption  from  guilt  and  penalty."  "  How 


CHAP.  VII. j  LANGUAGE.  12l 

could  Christ  die  if  he  were  not  a  reputed  sinner  ?  Had 
he  noi  first  had  a  relation  to  our  sin,  he  could  not  in 
justice  have  undergone  our  punishment.     He  must  in 
the  order  of  justice  be  supposed  a  sinner  really  or  by 
imputation. — 'Tis  as  much  against  divine  justice  to  in- 
flict punishment  where  there  is  no  sin,  as  it  is  to  spare 
the  offender. — Though  the  first  designation  of  the  Re- 
deemer  to  a  surety-ship  or  sacrifice  for  us  was  an  act 
of  God's  sovereignty ;  yet  the   inflicting  punishment 
after  that  designation  and  our  Saviour's  acceptance  of 
it,  was  an  act  of  God?s  justice. — Had  that  been  justice 
or  injustice  to  Christ,  to  lay  his  wrath  upon  the  Son  of 
his  love,  one    whose  Person  was  always  dear  to  him, 
always  pleased  him,  had  he  not  stood  as  a  sinner  juri- 
dically in  our  stead  ?"     "  If  Christ  hath  been  made 
a  curse  for  us, — he  must  then  have  the  violation  of 
the  law  imputed  to   him ;  otherwise   the   curse   of  it 
could  not  in  justice  have  been  inflicted  upon  him.    To 
inflict  the  curse  or  penalty  of  the  law  upon   one  no 
ways  chargeable  with  the  violation  of  it,  is   contrary 
to  the  justice  both  of  God  and  man."     "  What  is  pu- 
nishment but  the  infliction  of  the  curse  of  the  law  for 
the  violation  of  its   precepts  ?     And  if  the  law  could 
righteously  inflict  on  the  person  of  Manasseh  a  degree 
of  punishment  proportioned  to  his  guilt,  (for  without  a 
proportion  between  the  guilt  and  the  punishment  jus- 
tice is  not  satisfied,)  the  Substitute  of  Manasseh  must 
bear  the  same  punishment,  or  how  could  he  be  said  to 
suffer   in  his  stead  ?"     "  They  are  in   some  degree 
guilty  of  this,  [depreciating  the   sufferings  of  Christ,] 
who  will  by  no  means  allow  that  Christ  bore  the  idem, 
the  same  death,  the  same  curse,  that  was  threatened 
in  the  law  as  due  to  sin. — What  was  that  part  of  the 
sentence   of  the  law  that  wras  gone  out  against  sin, 
which  he  did  not  submit  to  ? — Has  the  law  anv  thin*- 

L 


122  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I* 

more  dreadful  in  all  its  stores  than  the  wrath  of  God  ? 
And  who  ever  bore  this  if  the  blessed  Jesus  did  not  ?" 
"  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ — has — suffered  all  that 
I  was  condemned  to  sustain."     "  It  appears  past  con- 
tradiction that  the  Redeemer  put  himself  in  the  very 
place  where  the  redeemed  stood,  and  took  upon  him 
that  very  curse  which  they  were  bound  under."  "  Did 
we  deserve  one   punishment  and   Christ  undergo  an- 
other?    Was  it  the  sentence  of  the  law  that  was  exe- 
cuted on  him,  or  was  it  some  other  thing  that  he  was 
obnoxious  to?"     "  Mention  is  every  where  made  of  a 
commutation  of  persons,  the  just  suffering  for  the  un- 
just, the  Sponsor  for  the  offender,  (his  name  as  a  Sure- 
ty being  taken  into  the  obligation,  and  the  whole  debt 
required  of  him  •,)  but  of  a  change  of  punishment  there 
is  no  mention  at  all."     "  Surely  whatever  could  have 
been  justly  inflicted  on   the   sinner  himself,   must  be 
borne  by  him  who  shall  pay  the  price  of  his  release." 
"  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  redemption  price 
paid  should  bear  an  exact  proportion  to  the  number  of 
persons  redeemed,  and   to  the  guilt  and  punishment 
from  which  they  are  redeemed  ;  or  else  it  cannot  be 
considered  as  a  legal  redemption."     "  If  therefore  a 
thousand  delinquents,  involved  in  different   degrees  of 
guilt,  are  justly  liable  to  suffer  in- their  own  persons 
the  punishment  due  to  their  various  enormities  ;  surely 
it  must  be  self-evident  that  if  the  guilt  of  these  enor- 
mities be  laid  upon  Christ  as  their  Substitute,  and  he 
suffer  in  their  stead,  he  must  bear  the   same  punish- 
ment.    If  this  be  denied,  and  it  be  allowed  that  the 
Lord  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  those  delinquents,  the 
law  of  God  must  have  relaxed  in  the  infliction  of  its 
curse,  which  as  a  moral  institute  was  impossible."    "  I 
am   convinced   that  the   sufferings   of  Christ   were  in 
oxact  proportion  to  the  guilt  of  the  many  sinners  he 


v'HAI\   VII.]  LANGUAGE.  123 

had  undertaken  to  redeem,  and  that  had  the  unworthy 
objects  of  his  merciful  regard  been  more  numerous, 
these  sufferings  would  have  likewise  been  augmented. " 
";  li  our  blessed  Lord  would  not  have  suffered  more 
had  the  number  to  be  saved  been  much  greater  than 
it  eventually  will  be,  why  should  he  have  suffered  so 
much  as  he  actually  did  suffer  ? — Infinite  justice  will 
never  inflict  the  least  degree  of  undeserved  punish- 
ment." "  To  say  therefore  that  the  compassionate 
Redeemer  suffered  less  than  the  delinquents  who  are 
redeemed  would  themselves  have  suffered,  is  not  to 
magnify  the  riches  of  his  dying  love,  nor  to  honour 
his  atonement.  And  to  say  that  these  sufferings  are 
sufficient  for  ten  times  the  number,  is  to  confound  all 
our  ideas  of  distributive  justice."  "  The  greater  the 
sin  of  the  elect  was,  the  more  Christ  suffered  ;  the 
greater  their  debt  was,  the  more  he  paid."  "  If,  as 
you  suppose,  our  blessed  Lord  have  suffered  enough 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  how  happens  it  that  all 
are  not  saved  ?"  "  The  more  I  reflect  on  this  highly- 
interesting  and  important  subject,  the  more  I  am  con- 
vinced that  the  sufferings  of  our  blessed  Lord  were  in 
every  respect  commensurate  to  the  requirements  of 
justice  ; — that  the  divine  law  to  which  he  voluntarily 
became  amenable,  did  not  relax  in  any  of  its  demands  ; 
that  he  did  not  endure  a  single  pang  more  than  it  could 
have  righteously  inflicted  on  the  sinners  themselves ; 
and  that  in  effecting  their  redemption  he  did  not  suffer 
one  less."  "  The  punishment  he  suffered  was  in  va- 
lue and  measure  answerable  to  all  the  sins  of  all  the  elect, 
past,  present,  and  to  come ;  the  Godhead  supporting 
the  manhood  that  it  might  be  able  to  bear  and  overcome 
the  whole  burden  of  the  wrath  of  God."  "  These  suf- 
ferings were  absolutely  necessary  for  the  salvation  of 
the  elect,  or  they  were  not.  If  indispensably  neces- 
sary, a  greater  degree  of  suffering  could  not  right- 


124  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

eously  be  inflicted  than  was  requisite  for  that  end,  or 
in  other  words,  than  was  needful  to  answer  the  claims 
of  justice.  And  if  these  sufferings,  as  to  duration  and 
intenseness,  were  absolutely  requisite  for  the  deliver- 
ance of  the  elect  from  final  ruin,  how  is  the  benefit  of 
these  sufferings  to  extend  to  those  who  make  no  part 
of  that  number?  For  if  our  blessed  Lord  endured 
more  than  the  least  possible  degree  of  suffering,  that 
suffering  could  not  be  the  result  of  mere  sovereignty  in 
him  who  will  minister  judgment  to  the  people  in  right- 
eousness, but  the  apportioned  desert  of  imputed  sin. 
It  is  repugnant  to  every  principle  of  justice  to  suppose 
that  these  sufferings  exceeded  the  demerit  for  which 
they  were  inflicted,  and  not  less  so  to  imagine  that  the 
merit  of  those  sufferings  extended  to  sin  that  it  never 
expiated."  "  If  therefore  Christ  suffered  for  those 
that  perish,  he  must  have  effected  their  redemption ; 
but  if  he  did  not  suffer  for  them,  he  must,  unless  a 
part  be  equal  to  the  whole,  have  suffered  less  than  he 
would  have  done  had  the  weight  of  their  sufferings 
been  added  to  what  he  endured."  "  If  his  precious 
blood  as  the  price  was  sufficient  to  make  expiation  for 
the  sins  and  transgressions  of  all  men,  and  all  are  not- 
saved,  how  is  impetration  and  application  of  the  same 
latitude  ?"  "  Such,  it  has  been  said,  was  the  precious- 
ness  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  that  one  drop  would  have 
been  sufficient  for  the  redemption  of  the  world.  But 
for  this  notion  there  is  no  scriptural  warrant.  It  is 
incompatible  with  the  honour  of  divine  justice  in  the 
infliction  of  punishment  on  Christ."  "  To  contend 
that  because  infinite  merit  attached  to  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  these  sufferings  must  of  necessity  be  sufficient 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  is  to  limit  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel. "  "  I  know  it  has  been  said  that  though  our 
blessed  Lord  died  intentionally  for  the  elect  only,  there 


CttAPi  VII.']  LANGUAGE.  125 

is  nevertheless  a  redundancy  of  merit  in  his  death  suf- 
ficient for  the  redemption  of  all  men.     This   1  consi- 
dered as  a  mistake."     "  So  far  from  there  being  a  re- 
dundancy of  merit  connected   with  the  atonement  ot 
Christ  sufficient  for  the  redemption  of  all  men,  that  the 
want  of  it  renders  the  condemnation  of  the  non-elect 
indispensably  requisite."      "  That  our  divine  Jesus 
could  have  redeemed  ten  thousand  worlds  if  in  the 
everlasting  covenant  he  had  been  constituted  the  fede- 
ral Head  and  had  become  t:;e  Surety  of  these  worlds, 
is  cheerfully   granted."      "  Yet  we   cannot  perceive 
any  solid  reason  to  conclude  that  his  propitiatory  suf- 
ferings are  sufficient  for  the  expiation  of  sins  which  he 
did  not  bear."     "  For  had  our  blessed  Lord  suffered 
ten  thousand  deaths  without  federal  relation  to  man- 
kind, the  blood  he  shed  would  have  been  equally  pre- 
cious, yet  it  would  not  have  been  available  for  the  re- 
demption of  a  single  individual."     "  As  therefore  the 
sufferings  of  our  blessed  Lord  were,  in  consequence 
of  his  own  voluntary  engagement,  a  debt  due  to  divine 
justice,  the  degree  of  suffering  could  not  righteously 
exceed  the  demerit  for  which  it  was  inflicted:  nor 
could  the  merit  of  that  suffering  extend  to  those  whose 
sins  he  never  bore,  whom  he  never  intended  to  save, 
and  for  whom  therefore  he  could  not  justly  suffer." 
•'  If  the  sufferings  of  our  blessed  Lord  were  not  regu- 
lated by  the  number  to  be  saved,  I   think  particular 
redemption,  and  the  doctrines  connected  with  it,  can- 
not be  successfully  defended*. 

From    these  principles,  and   because   it    is    said, 
w  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all,"  it 

*  Geth.p.  8,  9,  28,  30,  31,  33,  34,  36,  37,  40,  41,  42,  43,  48,  51,  52, 
53,  54,  57,  59,  60,  67,  68,  71,  82,  83,  84,  90,  106,  107,  111,  140,  144, 
145,  149,  150,  151, 153,  154,  155,  156,  160,  161, 165,  166,  167,  168, 169, 
170, 171,  182,  133. 

L  2 


126  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

is  inferred  that  the  law  was  literally  executed  upon 
Christ,  and  that  justice  was  literally  satisfied  in'  his 
death  ;  so  that  those  for  whom  he  died  cannot  justly  be 
punished  again,  but  may  claim  a  release  of  justice  it- 
self. And  because  he  is  said  to  have  been  made  sin 
for  us,  "  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him,"  it  is  inferred  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  legally  imputed  to  the  elect,  and  that  they 
are  considered  righteous  in  the  eye  both  of  law  and 
justice,  and  that  too,  (if  I  understand  the  writers.)  not 
as  believers,  but  as  mere  elect.  '•  Christ  and  the 
elect  are  so  united,  that  what  he  did  for  them  was 
reckoned  by  justice  itself  accountable  to  the  behoof 
and  concernment  of  each  elected  person,  as  much  as 
if  every  one  of  them  had  completely  satisfied  justice 
in  their  own  persons  : — and — the  fact  of  this  union, 
when  reduced  to  practical  and  personal  application, 
secures  the  existence  of  genuine  holiness  and  virtue." 
"  Faith  and  repentance  are  bestowed  upon  and 
wrought  in  these  persons,  not  as  conditions,  but  as 
blessings  of  that  covenant."  "  If  divine  justice  be 
perfectly  satisfied  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ ;  if  it 
could  ever  say,  It  is  enough  ;  it  could  not  stand  with 
the  same  justice  still  to  inflict  punishment."  "  He 
who  as  the  Judge  of  heaven  and  earth  must  always  do 
right,  is  said  to  justify  the  ungodly, — and  that  out  of 
justice,  so  that  he  is  just  in  forgiving  sin.  Mercy 
erects  her  throne  upon  the  basis  of  justice,  and  both 
equally  preside  at  the  tribunal  of  the  Judge  when  he 
pronounces  the  sentence  of  absolution."  "  Redemp- 
tion is  either  valid  or  invalid.  If  it  be  valid,  then  it 
will  answer  for  the  persons  redeemed  by  it  to  their 
deliverance  from  curse  and  condemnation  ;  or  else  di- 
vine justice  might  be  charged  with  injustice  in  exact- 
ing a  debt  first  from  the  Surety  and  then  from  the  prin- 


GHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.'  127 

cipal."  "  If  Christ  was  punished  in  his  sufferings,  he 
bore  either  a  part  of  that  punishment  to  which  we  were 
obnoxious,  or  the  whole. — If  he  bore  the  whole,  let 
such  who  conceive  that  God  punishes  those  for  whom 
he  died,  vindicate  and  clear  his  justice  in  so  doing  if 
they  are  able."  "  The  justice  of  God  renders  their 
salvation  absolutely  certain  ;  because  it  would  be  in- 
compatible with  the  first  principles  of  equity  to  punish 
in  their  own  persons  those  for  whose  sins  Christ  hath 
made  ample  satisfaction. — A  price  being  paid,  it  is  un- 
just to  detain  that  for  which  it  is  paid."  "  They  for 
whose  sins  complete  satisfaction  has  once  been  made  to 
the  justice  of  God  by  the  Mediator,  cannot  be  arrest- 
ed by  the  justice  of  God  and  bound  over  to  an  ulterior 
satisfaction  for  the  same  sins."  And  therefore  the 
doctrine  of  a  general  atonement  is  inconsistent  with 
the  "justice"  of  God  ;  as  on  that  supposition  "  he  re- 
ceived full  satisfaction  from  the  Son,  and  yet  does  not 
admit  all  to  favour."  "  Almighty  God  in  the  justifica- 
tion of  a  believing  sinner  is  not  only  gracious  and  mer- 
ciful, but  just  and  righteous  in  the  most  exalted  de- 
gree. The  design  and  end  of  God  in  exacting  satis- 
faction from  Christ,  was  to  declare  his  righteousness 
in  the  remission  of  sin.  But  the  apostle  would  have 
us  take  notice  that  our  justification  is  an  act  of  justice 
as  well  as  mercy  ;  and  that  God,  as  he  is  a  just  God, 
cannot  condemn  the  believer,  since  Christ  has  satisfied 
for  his  sins."  "  The  righteousness  by  which  we  are 
justified  before  God  must  in  a  certain  sense  be  our 
-own  in  a  way  of  right,  as  Adam's  sin  also  was,  though 
performed  in  the  person  of  another.  Christ  and  Adam 
being  parallels  in  their  head-ship,  the  imputation  of  the 
one's  guiltiness  and  the  other's  righteousness  are  right- 
eously applied  to  their  respective  seeds.  And  this  was 
the  main  end  of  the  Lord's  putting  those  he  would  jus- 


12S  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I* 

tify  into  Christ,  that  he  being  made  sin  and  a  curse  for 
them,  they  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him,  and  so  God  might  be  just  in  justifying  them.  If 
the  elect  had  not  been  in  Christ,  the  satisfaction  he  un- 
dertook for  sinners  could  not  have  availed  them.  As 
Adam's  sin  would  not  have  been  ours  if  not  in  him,  so 
neither  the  righteousness  of  Christ  if  not  in  him.  Di- 
vine justice  could  not  have  punished  him  for  us  nor  ab- 
solved us  through  him."  "  The  doctrine  of  general 
redemption — seems  to  tax  God  of  injustice,  as  not  dis- 
charging those  whose  transgressions  are  answered  for 
by  their  Surety  ;  or  else,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  not  sufficient  to  make  a  discharge  due  to  them." 
"  The  Socinians  expressly  oppose  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  plead  for  a  participa- 
tion of  its  effects  or  benefits  only.  But  to  say  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  that  is,  his  obedience  and  suf- 
ferings, are  imputed  to  us  only  as  to  their  effects,  is  to 
say  that  we  have  the  benefit  of  them  and  no  more, 
but  imputation  itself  is  denied."  Christ  "  did  not  die 
as  a  Sponsor  in  the  place  of  the  reprobate  : — for  other- 
wise they  cannot  justly  be  punished;  since  God  can- 
not punish  one  sin  twice,  once  in  Christ  and  once  in 
them  that  perish,  of  whom  he  exacts  his  due  even 
to  the  uttermost  farthing."  "  Christ  was  not  an  Un- 
dertaker for  a  people  under  any  general  notions  or 
qualifications,  (such  as  them  that  should  believe  on 
him,  or  the  like,)  not  knowing  definitely  who  the  per- 
sons were  ;  but  he  was  Surety  and  Undertaker  only 
for  the  elect."  i;  He  died  not  at  uncertainties,  nor 
laid  down  his  life  at  a  venture,  that  some  might  be 
saved  if  they  would  ;  but  his  intention  is  fixed  :  he  laid 
down  his  life  for  his  sheep,  for  his  Church,  for  his  peo- 
ple." "  He  bore  the  guilt  of  no  others  than  those  to 
whom  he  is  a  Head,  who  are  his  body,  and  for  whom 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  129 

he  became  a  Surety.  For  that  was  the  foundation  on 
which  sin  was  imputed  to  him  :  and  therefore  the  sins 
of  such  persons  only  were  imputed  to  him  who  are  re- 
lated to  him  as  members."  Thus  the  elect,  not  under- 
lie aspect  of  believers,  but  as  mere  elect,  were  his 
body,  his  members,  one  in  law  with  him,  and  made  so 
before  he  suffered  for  them  ;  and  it  would  have  been 
unjust  for  him  to  have  suffered  for  others*. 

What  bearing  these  sentiments  have  on  the  limita- 
tion of  the  atonement,  will  still  more  distinctly  appear 
by  the  following  quotations.  "  That  there  is  as  truly 
a  federal  relation  between  Christ  and  the  members  of 
his  mystical  body,  the  Church,  [the  elect  antecedent  to 
their  faith,]  as  there  was  between  Adam  and  his  natu- 
ral descendants,  the  Scriptures  abundantly  manifest : 
and  it  is  this  federal  relation  which  laid  the  foundation 
for  the  imputation  of  their  sins  to  Christ. — But  accord- 
ing to  the  sentiments  opposed, — no  such  relation  ever 
existed  ;  there  was  no  real  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ, 
nor  any  proper  punishment  inflicted  on  him  for  it ; 
consequently  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  with  re- 
ference  to  those  who  are  saved,  has  never  been  endur- 
ed. For  were  these  important  facts  admitted,  it  is 
easy  to  perceive  that  redemption  must  of  necessity  be 
limited ;  because  no  one  could  righteously  perish  for 
whose  sins  plenary  satisfaction  had  been  made  to  di- 
vine justice."  "  They  insist  that  what  Christ  paid 
for  our  redemption  was  not  the  same  with  what  is  in 
the  obligation,  and  that  therefore  his  dolorous  suffer- 
ings were  not  a  proper  payment  of  our  debt ;  and  con- 
sequently a  proper  and   full  satisfaction   for  our  sins 

*  Geth.  p.  13,  14,  37,  65,  66,  79,  80,  81,  83,  97,  101, 110, 113,  115, 116, 
117,  166,  173.  Also  the  delegates  from  Gelders  and  Emrlen,  and  the 
Dutch  Professors,  in  th°  ^ynod  of  Dort.  Acts  of  Synod.  Part  II.  p.  154^ 
155.     Part  III.  p.  123,131, 


130  FIGURATIVE  [PART  1. 

could  not  arise  from  his  death  to  the  law  and  justice 
of  God.  For  were  this  satisfaction  conceded,  they 
see  at  once  that  the  delinquents  for  whom  it  was  made 
must  inevitably  be  saved*." 

This  whole  system  goes  upon  the  principle  that  the 
atonement  was  a  legal  transaction,  partaking  of  a  com- 
mercial nature,  as  if  money  had  been  paid  for  the  re- 
demption of  so  many  captives  and  no  more,  or  for  the 
discharge  of  the  debt  of  so  many  imprisoned  bankrupts 
and  no  more ;  in  which  case,  as  all  can  see,  the  ran- 
somed captives  or  exonerated  debtors  wTould  have  a 
legal  claim  to  a  discharge.     To  make  out  a  parallel 
case  in  a  transaction  where  no  money  was  paid,  it  is 
necessary  to  establish  a  personal  identity,  (for  I  can 
call  it  by  no  other  name,)  between  the  Representative 
and  the  represented,   which   they  denominate  a  legal 
oneness,  (the  justice  of  which  depended  on  his  previous 
consent,)  and   to  make  him  legally  guilty  by  imputa- 
tion, and  legally  and  justly  adjudged  to  punishment  in 
the  room  of  those  whom  he  represented,  and  to  make 
him  suffer  a  literal  and  legal  punishment,  the  same  in 
kind  and  degree   that  the  law  had  threatened  to  that 
particular  number.     In  this  way  law  and  justice  were 
literally  satisfied  and   could  demand  no   more ;    and 
those  whose  debt  was  thus  discharged  can  claim  of  lazo 
and  justice  a  release,  and  cannot  legally  or  justly  be 
punished  again,  but  have  a  righteousness  legally  their 
own  by  imputation,  and  which  legally  and  justly  enti- 
tles them  to  justification  ;  and  yet  not  a  legal  claim  to 
justification  in  their  own  persons,  but  in  their  Surety  ; 
they  virtually  possessing  two  persons,  one  demanding 
of  the  law  condemnation,  the  other  demanding  of  the 
law  justification  :  and  all  this  not  depending  on  their 
faith ;  for  one  of  the  blessings  to  which,  (though  un* 
*  Geth.  p.  10, 11,  20,  21, 


CHAP.  VII. j  LANGUAGE.  131 

conscious  of  it,)  they  have  this  legal  claim,  is  the  gift 
of  faith.  The  result  is,  that  Christ  was  a  Surety, 
Sponsor,  or  Representative  for  none  but  those  who 
will  be  saved,  and  could  not  justly  suffer  for  any 
whose  sins  were  not  thus  finally  taken  from  them  and 
laid  upon  him. 

Had  a  legal  oneness  between  Christ  and  believers, 
(as  relates  to  justification,  not  to  the  amount  of  his  suf- 
ferings,) been  asserted,  it  would  not  have  limited  the 
atonement ;  for  it  would  still  have  left  to  all  a  chance 
to  come  into  this  relation  to  him  by  believing ;  and 
that  would  have  been   an   atonement  for  all  as  moral 
agents.     It  was  necessary  to   extend  the  oneness  so 
far  as  to  limit  the  sufferings  :  for  had  they  been  suffi- 
cient for  all,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  since  the   be- 
nefit is  offered  to  all,  that  they  changed   the  relations 
of  all,  so  that  they  can  be    pardoned   if  they   will  be- 
lieve ;  which  again  makes  out  an  atonement  for  all  as 
moral  agents.     And  if  the  oneness  must  be  so  extend- 
ed as  to  affect  the  amount  of  sufferings,   it  cannot  lie 
between  Christ  and  those  indiscriminately  who  would 
believe,  but  between  him  and  a  certain  number  of  de- 
signated  individuals,    whose   sins    could    be   exactly 
weighed.     And  the  oneness  must  have  been  establish- 
ed before  he  suffered,  as  his  sufferings  were  to  be  their 
legal  punishment.     In  every  point  of  view  the  system 
must  take  this  precise  shape  in  order  to  bear  upon  a 
limited  atonement,   which,  as   the   author  of  Gethse- 
mane   conclusively  pleads,  can   be   supported  on  no 
other  ground.     The  oneness  must  be  legal  to  limit  the 
sufferings ;  and  when  their  limit   is   to   be  fixed,   the 
number  and  individuals  for  whom  they  are  to  be  en- 
dured must  be  known  ;  and  since  the   infliction  is  to 
be  legal,  it  cannot  take  place   till  the   union  is  first 
formed.     It  15  of  course  a  vital  principle  of  the  system 


132  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

that  a  legal  oneness  was  established  in  the  covenant 
of  redemption  between  Christ  and  the  elect,  which 
exists  of  course  before  they  believe,  and  existed  be- 
fore he  died,  and  was  the  ground  of  the  imputation  of 
their  sins  to  him  ;  that  the  elect  as  elect  were  regard- 
ed in  the  covenant  as  his  body,  his  members,  his 
Church,  his  spiritual  seed,  standing  in  the  same  relation 
to  him  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  do  to  their  federal 
head  ;  in  short,  that  antecedent  to  all  faith,  a  complete 
legal  oneness  existed  between  the  elect  and  Christ. 
He  was  legally  bound  to  suffer  their  punishment  both 
in  measure  and  kind ;  and  bonds  being  given  to  that 
effect,  they  had,  though  unknown  to  themselves,  a  legal 
claim  to  a  discharge. 

There  are,  I  conceive,  two  errours  in  this  system. 
The  first  is,  that  it  makes  the  union,  which  really  sub- 
sists between  Christ  and  believers,  to  lie  between  Christ 
and  the  elect.  The  second  is,  that  it  supposes  a  legal 
oneness,  a  legal  imputation,  a  legal  obligation  to  suf- 
fer, a  legal  punishment,  a  legal  satisfaction,  and  a  legal 
claim  on  the  part  of  the  redeemed.  We  admit  a  very 
intimate  union  between  Christ  and  believers,  and  that 
kind  of  imputation  both  of  sin  and  righteousness  which 
consists  in  treatment,  and  a  bond  on  him  to  suffer  im- 
posed by  a  divine  command,  and  the  intliction  of  that 
which  answered  every  purpose  of  a  legal  punishment, 
and  a  full  satisfaction  yielded  to  the  Protector  of  the 
law,  and  the  claim  of  believers  on  the  promise  of  God. 
But  we  deny  that  either  of  these  is  legal.  The  mis- 
take of  supposing  them  such  has  wholly  arisen  from 
drawing  literal  conclusions  from  figurative  premises. 
Because  Christ  is  said  to  be  one  with  believers,  or  his 
Church,  he  is  legally  one  with  the  elect.  Because 
he  is  said  to  have  been  made  sin  for  us,  (by  which  is 
meant  that  he  was  treated  as  a  sinner,)  he  became  le- 


CHAP.  VII. j  LANGUAGE.  loo 

gaily  guilty  by  imputation.  Because  the  Lawgiver 
demanded  satisfaction  of  him  by  commanding  him  to 
die,  law  and  justice  made  the  demand.  Because  the 
iniquity  of  all  is  said  to  have  been  laid  on  him,  he  sus- 
tained the  literal  and  legal  punishment  of  sin.  Be- 
cause he  was  dragged  to  execution  like  a  criminal, 
and  fell  under  the  stroke  of  him  who  was  wont  to  act 
as  the  legal  Executioner,  law  and  justice  were  literally 
executed  upon  him.  Because  he  rendered  full  satis- 
faction to  the  Protector  of  the  law,  by  securing  its  au- 
thority as  fully  as  though  it  had  been  literally  execu- 
ted, he  satisfied  both  law  and  justice.  Because  by  a 
covenant  claim  he  bound  the  arm  of  the  Lawgiver  and 
Executioner  not  to  strike  believers,  he  bound  the  law 
itself  not  to  strike  the  elect.  Because  we  are  said  to 
be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  (by  which 
is  meant  that  we  are  treated  as  righteous,  or  have  the 
complete  use  of  a  righteousness,  or  possess  a  gracious 
title  to  justification  through  the  righteousness  of  the 
Redeemer,)  we  are  considered  in  the  eye  of  the  law  as 
righteous.  Because  by  his  obedience  he  fulfilled  all 
the  demands  of  the  law  against  himself,  and  answered 
all  the  purposes  of  our  perfect  obedience,  and  by  his 
death  accomplished  all  the  ends  of  a  literal  execution 
of  the  penalty,  and  thus  became  the  end  of  the  law  for 
righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth,  he  wrought 
out  a  legal  righteousness  for  the  elect.  And  because 
God,  having  thus  secured  the  authority  of  the  law,  can 
be  just  to  himself,  to  his  government,  and  to  every 
interest,  while  yet  he  is  the  justifier  of  him  that  be- 
lieveth, the  justification  of  the  elect  is  an  act  of  dis- 
tributive justice  to  them.  Thus  by  pressing,  in  some 
instances,  the  figurative  language  of  Scripture  into  a 
literal  meaning,  and  by  twisting  the  truth  a  very  little 

M 


i34  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

in  others,  they  arrive  at  all  the  conclusions  which  have 
been  enumerated. 

In  proceeding  to  detect  the  mistakes  of  this  system, 
I  must  begin  by  remarking  that  the  atonement  had 
none  of  the  attributes  of  a  commercial  transaction. 
Christ  paid  no  money  for  us,  he  only  suffered.  There 
are  two  figures  of  a  commercial  nature  which  are  com- 
monly applied  to  the  subject.  The  first  represents 
Christ  as  paying  a  ransom  for  the  redemption  of  cap- 
tives, or  purchasing  his  Church ;  the  second  exhibits 
him  as  discharging  the  debts  of  imprisoned  bankrupts. 
The  former  is  derived  from  the  Scriptures.  I  have 
already  admitted  that  the  higher  ransom,  which  involv- 
ed the  service  of  his  obedience  "  unto  death,"  was  limit- 
ed to  the  elect.  Their  salvation  was  promised  him  as 
the  reward  of  that  service.  When  he  had  fulfilled  his 
part  of  the  contract,  he  became  justly  entitled  to  the 
recompense,  as  a  man  is  to  an  article  which  he  has 
purchased.  In  this  sense  he  may  be  said  to  have  pur- 
chased the  elect.  And  though  the  price  is  represent- 
ed to  be  his  blood,  yet  it.  was  -the  merit  of  obedience 
in  laying  down  that  blood  which  really  earned  the  re- 
ward. But  this  is  altogether  different  from  the  atone- 
ment. When  the  atonement  is  spoken  of  as  a  ransom, 
it  is  only  a  price  laid  down  to  enable  captives  to  come 
out  if  they  will.  If  this  distinction  is  kept  in  mind,  all 
the  appeals  to  our  sense  of  commercial  justice  respect- 
ing the  ransom,  will  come  to  nothing. 

The  other  figure,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  is  purely  of 
human  invention.  The  Scriptures,  I  believe,  no  where 
speak  of  Christ's  paying  the  debt  even  of  believers, 
much  less  of  the  elect  as  such.  They  speak  of  the 
debt  as  still  remaining,  and  as  being  after  repentance 
and  faith  gratuitously  forgiven.  They  "teach  us  to 
pray,  "  Forgive  us  our  debts  as  we  forgive  our  debt- 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  135 

ors."  They  illustrate  our  discharge  by  the  case  of  a 
servant  who  owed  his  lord  ten  thousand  talents  and 
had  nothing  to  pay,  to  whom  in  answer  to  his  en- 
treaties his  lord  forgave  the  whole.  Nop  can  it  be  over- 
looked that  this  notion  of  paying  our  debt,  stands  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  every  idea  of  pardon,  and  to  all 
those  representations  of  a  free  and  gracious  justifica- 
tion with  which  the  Scriptures  abound.  What  remis- 
sion or  grace  can  there  be  in  discharging  a  bankrupt 
when  his  debts  are  paid  ?  You  say  there  wras  grace  in 
providing  the  Bondsman.  Granted.  But  when  the 
Bondsman  has  discharged  the  whole  score,  there  is  no 
grace  in  letting  the  debtor  go.  At  least  there  is  no- 
thing which  answers  to  the  scriptural  idea  of  pardon. 

All  the  popular  arguments  then  which  are  drawn 
from  the  figure  of  paying  debts,  are  not  onty  unscriptu 
ral  and  of  human  invention,  but  directly  opposed  to 
the  word  of  God.  There  was  nothing  in  the  atone- 
ment of  such  a  commercial  nature.  And  yet  the  whole 
system  which  we  are  considering  is  built  on  the  as- 
sumption that  this  august  measure  had  all  the  attri- 
butes of  a  money  transaction.  There  is  only  one  way 
in  which  the  resemblance  can  be  at  all  maintained  ; 
and  that  is  by  establishing  a  personal  identity  between 
the  Representative  and  the  represented.  If  this  could 
be  done,  I  admit  that  all  the  principles  of  a  pecuniary 
payment  would  apply  to  the  case.  Whether  therefore 
any  of  the  arguments  founded  on  commercial  figures 
are  at  all  applicable,  depends  on  the  single  question  of 
that  personal  identity. 

In  proceeding  to  examine  this  alleged  oneness  in 
law,  we  must  keep  in  mind  between  what  parties  it  is 
supposed  to  exist.  Were  it  placed  between  Christ 
and  believers,  it  would  not  fix  the  exact  amount  of  his 
sufferings,  and  of  course  would  have  no  influence  to 


*36  FIGURATIVE  [PART  1. 

limit  the  atonement.  It  is  vital  to  the  system  to  fix  it 
between  Christ  and  the  elect,  and  to  establish  it  before 
he  suffered,  and  at  the  time  he  gave  bonds  to  die. 
The  theory  then  labours  under  two  distinct  and  power- 
ful objections  :  first,  that  a  literal  legal  oneness  in  re- 
gard to  guilt  and  righteousness  is  established  between 
two  parties  ;  secondly,  that  such  a  oneness  subsists 
between  Christ  and  the  elect  before  they  believe,  and 
even  before  they  are  born.  I  will  reverse  the  order 
and  consider  the  latter  first. 

Whatever  oneness  subsists  between  Christ  and  be- 
lievers, there  appear  to  be  insurmountable  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  making  it  lie  between  him  and  the  un- 
born or  unregenerate  elect. 

First,  no  such  oneness,  I  think,  is  spoken  of  in  the 
Scriptures.  I  read  indeed  that  Christ  and  believers  are 
in  some  respects  one,  that  Christ  and  his  members 
are  one ;  that  Christ  and  his  Church  are  one  ;  but 
where  do  we  read  that  Christ  and  the  unborn  or  un- 
regenerate elect  are  one  ?  I  know  of  but  one  pas- 
sage which  has  the  semblance  of  favouring  such  an 
opinion*,  and  that  only  speaks  of  a  union  between 
Christ  and  his  Church ;  but  then  by  Church  here  is 
thought  to  be  meant  the  whole  body  of  the  elect,  be- 
cause Christ  is  said  to  have  loved  and  given  himself 
for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  it.  The  question  then  is, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  Church  in  the  passage  referred  to? 
It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  in  almost  every  instance 
in  which  the  word  is  used  in  a  general  sense  either 
in  the  Old  Testament  or  New,  it  means  the  "  visible 
Church,"  comprehending  all  those  who  "  profess  the 
true  religion!."  Then  the  invisible  or  real  Church 
ought  to  comprehend  all  those  who  possess  the  true  re- 

*  Eph.  5.  23—32. 

t  The  Christian's  Magazine,  reputed  to  be  edited  by  the  Rev.  Pr. 
Mason  of  New-York.     Vol.  I.  p.  56.  57,  64,  65. 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  137 

ligion.  This  is  certainly  the  antithesis  between  a 
visible  and  real  Christian,  and  between  visibility  and 
reality  in  every  thing.  Again,  it  is  admitted  that  when 
either  of  the  Hebrew  words  which  stand  for  Church 
"  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,"  or  the  Greek  word 
"  in  the  New,  you  are  sure  of  an  assembly,  but  of  no- 
thing more*."  But  the  elect  are  not  an  assembly  be- 
fore they  exist,  nor  before  they  are  gathered  together 
in  Christ,  This  gathering,  as  a  distinct  thing  from 
election,,  is  set  in  a  strong  light  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Ephesians.  "  Who  hath  blessed  us,  [believers,]  with 
all  spiritual  blessings — in  Christ ;  according  as  he 
hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world. — Having  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of 
his  will, — that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times 
he  might  gather  together  in  one  all  things  in  Christy 
both  which  are  in  heaven  and  which  are  on  earth? 
even  in  him."  The  gathering  of  the  elect  into  an  as- 
sembly or  Church,  then,  takes  place  in  time,  and  as 
fast  as  they  are  made  true  believers.  Accordingly  all 
the  notices  which  we  have  of  the  real  or  invisible 
Church,  apply  to  the  general  assembly  of  actual  be- 
lievers. The  description  of  that  body  is  in  these 
words.  "  The  general  assembly  and  Church  of  the  first- 
born, [sons  and  heirs  of  God  by  regeneration  and 
adoption,]  which  are  written  in  heavenf,"  in  the  re- 
gister of  the  city  of  God  :  not  those  who  were  destin- 
ed to  citizenship,  but  those  who  are  actual  citizens. 
"  Unto  him  be  glory  in  the  Church  by  Christ  Jesus 
throughout  all  ages,  world  without  endj.."  And  in  the 
very  place  under  consideration,  "  Therefore  as  the 
Church  is  subject  unto  Christ,  so  let  the  wives  be  t© 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  vol.  i.  p.  55. 
t  Heb.  12.  23. %  Eph.  3.  21, 

M  2 


138  FIGURATIVE  [ PART  I. 

their  own  husbands  in  every  thing.     Husbands  love 
your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and 
gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it, 
— that  he  might  present  it  tu  himself  a  glorious  Churchy 
not  having   spot,   or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing, — So 
ought  men  to  love  their  wives  as  their  own  bodies. 
— For  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh,  but  nou- 
risheth  and  cherisheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the  Church, 
For  we,  [believers,]  are  members  of  his   body,  of  his 
flesh,  and  of  his  bones."     Now  the  unborn  or  unre- 
generate  elect  are  not  subject  to  Christ,  are  not  nou- 
rished and  cherished  by  him,  are  not  living  members 
of  him,  are  not  married  to   him.     The  real  Church  is 
11  the  bride,  the   Lamb's  wife*."     As  it  is  the  mar- 
riage covenant   which  makes   the   wife,   so  it  is  the 
covenant  of  grace  between  Christ  and  believers  which 
makes  the  Church.     The  covenant  between  the  Sacred 
Persons  about  the  elect,  was  like   the  espousal  of  in- 
fants to  each  other  by   the  act  of  their  parents ;  but 
marriage  is  effected  by  nothing  but  a  mutual  covenant 
between  the  parties.      None  belong  to  the  real  invisi- 
ble Church  till  they  have  given  themselves  away  to 
Christ  in  an  everlasting  covenant,  and   till  such  a  mu- 
tual affection  is  formed  as   subsists  between  husband 
and  wife.     The  Church,  both  visible  and  real,  is  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  its  members  are  members  of  him. 
This  is  true  of  the  visible  Church.     u  He  is  the  Head 
of  the  body,  the  Church. — For  his  body's  sake  which 
is  the  Church,  whereof  I  am  made  a  minister],"     The 
visible  Church  seems  to  be  respected,  if  not  chiefly,  in 
the  following  passage  :  "  And  gave  him  to  be  Head 
(dver  all  things  to  the  Church,  which  is  his  body,  the 
fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all   in  allj."     This  is  true 
llso  of  the  invisible  Church  ;  as  appears  from  the  very 

•  Rev.  21.  9. 1  Col.  1.  18,  24,  25. \  Eph.  1.  22,23. 


CHAP.  Vlli]  LANGUAGE.  139 

passage  under  consideration.  "  The  husband  is  the 
head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  Head  of  the 
Church ;  and  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body. — No  man 
ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh,  but  nourisheth  and  che- 
risheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the  Church.  For  we  are 
members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones. 
For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother 
and  shall  be  joined  unto  his  wife,  and  they  two  shall 
be  one  flesh.  This  is  a  great  mystery  ;  but  I  speak  con- 
cerning Christ  and  the  Church."  Now.  are  the  unborn 
and  unregenerate  elect  thus  one  flesh  with  Christ,  and 
members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones  ? 
Is  there  that  nourishment  derived  from  him  while  they 
are  without  life  ?  Is  there  that  mutual  sympathy  be- 
tween him  and  them  while  they  remain  his  enemies  ? 
Has  he  so  many  dead  and  putrid  members  hanging  to 
his  body  ?  Very  different  is  the  view  of  his  body 
as  given  by  the  inspired  apostle.  "  But  speaking  the 
truth  in  love,  may  grow  up  into  him  in  all  things, 
which  is  the  Head,  even  Christ;  from  whom  the  whole 
body,  fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that  which 
every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  effectual  work- 
ing in  the  measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of 
the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love*."  It  is 
a  pari  of  the  system  that  the  elect  were  "  put  into 
Christ"  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  But  the 
Scriptures  know  of  no  such  union  antecedent  to  faith. 
"  If  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature."  "  Of 
him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  uho  of  God  is  made  unto 
us — sanctification."  "  And  I,  brethren,  could  not 
speak  unto  you  as  unto  spiritual,  but  as  unto  carnal, 
even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ."  "  Who  also  were  in 
Christ  before  me."  "  The  churches  in  Judea  which 
were  in  Christ."     "  We  are  in  him  that  is  true,  eves 

*  JEph.  4.  15,  16- 


140  FIGURATIVE  [PART  1. 

in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."     "  God — hath  quickened 
us, — and — raised  us  up  together,  and  made  us  sit  to- 
gether in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus."     "  Ye  are 
all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."     "  We  being  many  are  one 
body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  an- 
other*."     The  idea  of  being  in  Christ,  is  that  we  are 
so  united  to  him  as  to  draw  present  life  from  him,  as 
the  branches  from  the  vine  ;  and  the  bond  of  this  union 
is  faith.     "  Abide  in  me  and   I  in  you  :  as  the  branch 
cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself  except  it  abide  in  the  vine, 
no  more  can  ye  except  ye  abide  in  me.     I  am  the 
vine,  ye  are  the  branches :  he  that  abideth  in  me  and 
I  in  him,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much   fruit. — If  a 
man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch  and 
is  withered!."     It  is  a  part  of  the  system  that  the  un- 
born and  unregenerate  elect  are  the  spiritual  seed  of 
Christ,  made  so  by  their  federal  relation  to  him.     But 
if  it  is  so,  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  headships 
of  the  two  Adams.     The  posterity  of  the  first  Adam 
possess  his  temper  as  soon  as  they  exist  his  seed  ;  but 
according  to  this  theory,  men  are  the  seed  of  Christ 
for  many  years  without  bearing  his  image,  and  while 
remaining  strangers   and  enemies.     A   seed  are   not 
constituted  such  by  covenant,  but  are  made  such  by 
birth.     The  seed   of  the  first  Adam  become  such  by 
generation,  and  share  by  covenant  only  his  sin  and 
condemnation.      If  there  is  any  analogy,  men  become 
the  seed  of  Christ  by  a  new  birth,  and  instantly  begin 
to  partake  of  his  holiness  and  justification.     They  are 
never  the  seed  of  Christ  till  they  are  the  sons  oi  God 
and  heirs  of  glory.     u  If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  /iwj."     Accordingly  the  seed 

*  Rom.  12.  5.  and  16.  7.    1  Cor.  1.  30.  and  3.  1.    2  Cor.  5.  17.    Gal. 

1.   22.  and   3.  28.     Eph.   2.  4—6.     1  John  5.  20. +  John  15. 

t  Rom.  8.  9. 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  141 

that  were  promised  Christ  as  a  reward,  were  not  a 
body  of  unregenerate  elect,  but  a  glorious  company  of 
believers.  When  this  "  general  assembly  and  Church 
of  the  first  born"  are  contemplated  in  relation  to  their 
Shepherd,  they  are  the  flock,  the  sheep  who  :'  know 
his  voice,"  and  know  him,  and  "  follow  him,"  and 
will  not  follow  a  stranger*.  The  Church,  the  body, 
the  members,  the  flock,  the  sheep,  the  seed,  of  Christ, 
are  all  terms  of  equal  import,  and  denote,  in  their 
proper  and  primary  sense,  not  the  elect  as  such,  but 
believers,  the  first  born,  the  sons  of  God  and  heirs  of 
glory ;  but  are  applied  to  those  who  are  visibly,  as 
well  as  to  those  who  are  really  such.  Yet  in  one  in- 
stance the  unregenerate  and  unborn  elect  are,  figura- 
tively and  by  way  of  anticipation,  called  the  sheep  : 
"  Other  sheep  I  have  which  are  not  of  this  fold. — Ye 
believe  not  because  ye  are  not  of  ray  sheept :"  and 
once,  by  the  same  form  of  speech,  they  are  called  the 
children  of  God :  "  He  prophesied  that  Jesus  should 
die  for  that  nation  ;  and  not  for  that  nation  only,  but 
that  also  he  should  gather  together  in  one  the  children 
of  God  that  were  scattered  abroadj."  On  the  other 
hand,  in  two  places  those  who  were  already  the 
Church,  or  believers,  are  spoken  of  under  that  deno- 
ruination,  but  with  reference  to  their  previous  elect 
character.  One  of  these  instances  is  in  the  passage 
under  consideration.  "  Christ  also  loved  the  Churchj 
[that  body  of  men  who  when  developed  are  presented 
as  the  Church,  the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife,  married  to 
him  by  covenant,  united  to  him  in  mutual  affection, "  sub- 
ject unto  Christ,"  "  one  flesh"  with  him,  his  "  body," 
"  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones,"] 
and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and 

*  John  10.  4,  5,  8,  14,  27, 1  John  10.   16,  26. %  John  it. 

5L  52, 


142  FIGURATIVE  [PART  1. 

cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word ; 
that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church, 
not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but  that 
it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish."     That  is,  he 
gave  himself  that  by   his  obedience  "  unto  death"  he 
might  ransom  the  elect  from  the  dominion  of  sin,  and 
have  a  covenant  right  to  sanctity  them  as  his  reward. 
In   this    sense   he   effectually  purchased  them.     Now 
whether  the  term  Church  is  applied  to  them  viewed  as 
the  unregenerate  elect,  or  as  the   body  of  developed 
elect   under  the  character  of  believers,   will   appear 
from  the  other  instance  referred  to  in  which  the  same 
form  of  expression  is  used.     "  Take   heed   therefore 
unto  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock,  [the  sheep,  the  ac- 
credited believers  of  EphesusJ   over  the  which  the 
Holy   Ghost   hath  made   you   overseers,   to  feed  the 
Church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased  with   his  own 
blood*."     Here  the  Church  which   Christ   loved  and 
gave  himself  for,  that  he  might  sanctify  it,  is  found  to 
be  the  body  of  believers,  contemplated  with  reference 
to  their  former  character  of  elect.     But  it  is  only  in 
the  character  of  believers  that  the  denomination  of 
Church  is  applied  to  them.      When  therefore  it  is  said 
in  the  fifth  of  Ephesians,  that  Christ  and  the  Church 
are  "one  flesh,"  we  are  not  to  understand  that  such 
a  union  exists  between  him  and  the  unborn  or  unre- 
generate elect,  but  only  between  him  and  the  body  of 
believers. 

And  when  this  passage  is  disposed  of,  I  know 
of  no  other  which  has  the  semblance  of  favouring 
such  an  opinion.  And  to  build  so  stupendous  a 
structure  on  a  single  passage,  which  at  best  is  of 
doubtful  import,  seems  not  to  be  wise  or  warranta- 
ble.    The  other  texts  which  occur  to  me   undenia- 

*  Acts  20.  23. 


GHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  143 

bly  speak  of  believers.  Take  for  instance  that 
in  the  17th  of  John  :  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these 
alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me 
through  their  word  ;  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may 
be  one  in  us  : — I  in  them,  and  thou  in,  me,  that  they 
may  be  made  perfect  in  one." 

Secondly,  if  Christ  is  one  in  law  with  the  unborn  and 
unregenerate  elect,  then  the  latter  were  justified  from 
eternity.  It  is  alleged  that  by  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption they  were  put  into  Christ,  and  made  fede- 
rally one  with  him,  as  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  with 
their  federal  head,  and  were  constituted  his  spiritual 
seed,  his  members,  his  body,  his  invisible  Church  ; 
and  that  this  was  the  ground  of  the  legal  transfer  of 
their  sins  to  him,  by  which  they  obtained  a  claim  on 
law  and  justice  to  a  discharge.  Then  certainly  they 
were  justified  from  eternity.  Adam's  posterity  are 
condemned  with  him  as  soon  as  they  become  his 
seed ;  and  the  elect  must  be  justified  with  Christ  as 
soon  as  they  sustain  the  relation  of  seed  to  him.  How 
could  they  be  federally  his  seed  and  yet  remain  under 
condemnation?  If  they  were  put  into  Christ,  in  any 
sense  in  which  that  phraseology  is  used  in  Scripture, 
they  were  certainly  justified.  "  There  is — now  no 
condemnation  to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus*." 
If  they  were  one  in  law  with  Christ,  and  their  guilt 
was  literally  taken  from  them  and  put  upon  him,  then 
they  were  clear.  Take  the  favourite  case  of  a  bonds- 
man assuming  the  whole  debt :  certainly  where  this  is 
done  the  original  debtor  is  discharged.  I  know  there 
is  an  inconsistency  in  the  very  supposition  of  eternal 
justification,  because  justification  respects  the  treat- 
ment and  relations  of  moral  agents  in  actual  exist- 

*  Rom.  8.  1 


144  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

ence.  Bat  if  men  could  so  far  exist  in  the  purpose 
and  view  of  God,  as  to  have  their  guilt  literally  and 
substantially  transferred  to  Christ  from  eternity,  they 
could  be  eternally  justified.  Unless  then  we  are  pre- 
pared, in  the  face  of  the  entire  Epistles  to  the  Romans 
and  Galatians,  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  eternal  jus- 
tification, we  must  abandon  this  idea  of  eternal  one- 
ness  between  Christ  and  the  elect.  Will  you  say  then 
that  they  are  one  with  him  as  soon  as  they  exist? 
Then  they  are  justified  in  a  state  of  unregeneracy.  It 
is  manifest  that  none  but  the  justified  can  in  any  sense 
be  one  in  law  with  Christ.  The  man  who  lies  under 
condemnation  at  the  same  moment  that  Christ  is  jus- 
tified, is  neither  considered  nor  treated  as  one  in  law 
with  him.  If  then  the  unregenerate  elect  are  one  in 
law  with  Christ,  and  have  a  claim  on  justice  to  a  dis- 
charge, they  are  already  justified,  not  "  by  faith,"  but 
without  faith.  But  this  is  certainly  not  the  fact.  They 
are  "  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others*." 
And  thus  they  remain,  until  by  a  new  birth  they  be- 
come the  seed  of  Christ,  and  are  united  to  him  in  ho- 
liness and  justification.  And  when  they  begin  to  draw 
life  from  him,  then  are  they  the  members  of  his  body, 
branches  of  the  living  Vine,  parts  of  the  real  invisible 
Church.  Till  then  they  were  only  destined  to  such  a 
union. 

But  this  legal  oneness,  whether  with  believers  or 
unbelievers,  is  a  thing  impossible.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  a  legal  oneness  between  two  parties  in  cer- 
tain respects,  and  to  a  certain  extent.  The  following 
instances  may  be  selected. 

(1.)  A  oneness  in  commercial  concerns.  Such  an 
identity  subsists  to  a  certain  extent  between  husband 
*nd  wife,  and  between  partners  in  trade.     The  rea- 

*  Eph.  2;  3. 


CHAF.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  145 

son  is,  that  two  persons  may  have  a  common  right  in 
the  same  property,  and  according  to  the  laws  of  so- 
ciety one  may  bind  the  whole  concern.  One  person 
may  also  identify  himself  with  another  by  bond.  This 
is  founded  in  the  fact  that  property  is  not  inseparable 
from  the  person,  but  is  alienable  at  one's  own  discre- 
tion. Any  man  has  a  right  to  give  his  property  to 
another,  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  to  assume  his  ob- 
ligations. 

(2.)  Such  an  identity  that  one  may  act  for  another, 
and  lay  the  other  under  moral  obligations.  Thus  pa- 
rents may  bind  their  children  out  to  an  earthly  master, 
and  lay  them  under  moral  obligations  to  serve  him. 
Thus  they  may  bind  them  out  to  a  heavenly  Master  in 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  lay  upon  them  new  ob- 
ligations to  serve  him.  This  is  founded  on  the  fact 
that  parents  have  received  from  God,  and  in  the  former 
instance  from  the  laws  of  society,  a  right  thus  to  dis- 
pose of  their  children. 

(3  )  A  political  oneness.  All  the  inhabitants  of  a 
country  are  treated  as  enemies  whenever  the  govern- 
ment sees  fit  to  declare  war.  This  is  because  they 
are  understood  to  be  so  under  the  control  of  their  go- 
vernment as  to  be  transformed  by  its  authority  into 
actual  and  voluntary  enemies  ;  or  because  they  are 
considered  so  much  the  interest  and  care  of  the  go- 
vernment as  to  be  the  proper  medium  through  which 
revenge  can  be  executed  upon  it. 

(4.)  A  oneness  between  a  man  and  his  representa- 
tive, where  the  latter  is  only  the  organ  to  execute  the 
will  or  to  indicate  the  heart  of  his  principal.  Such  is 
the  identity  between  a  king  and  his  envoy  who  is  go- 
verned by  royal  instructions.  Such  I  understand  to 
be  the  identity  between  Adam  and  us.  A  oneness  of 
-moral  character  was  first  established  between  Adam 

N 


146  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

and  his  posterity,  so  that  if  he  was  holy  we  should  be 
holy,  if  he  was  sinful  we  should  be  sinful.  This  done, 
his  outward  act,  (for  we  are  no  where  said  to  be  con- 
demned for  the  sin  of  Adam's  heart,)  was  as  much  the 
index  of  our  heart  as  of  his  own,  and  was  made  the 
public  ground  of  our  condemnation,  in  the  same  sense 
that  our  outward  act  would  have  been  the  ground  had 
we  eaten  the  apple  ourselves*. 


*  Because  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  supposed  to  present  an  in- 
stance of  such  a  legal  oneness  as  we  deny,  it  is  necessary  to  dwell  on 
this  subject  a  little.  The  only  passage  in  the  Bible  which  plainly  as- 
serts that  we  are  condemned  to  more  than  temporal  calamities  and 
death  for  Adam's  sin,  or  which  draws  a  complete  parallel  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  is  found  in  the  5th  of  Romans.  The  extent  of  the 
parallel  is  of  course  to  be  learned  from  the  parallel  itself,  and  nothing 
appears  in  it  to  limit  its  universality.  Our  surest  way  then  to  learn  the 
connexion  between  the  first  Adam  and  his  posterity,  is  from  the  known 
connexion  between  the  Second  Adam  and  his  seed. 

(1)  By  a  covenant  transaction  between  the  Father  and  Son,  those 
who  were  te  be  the  seed  of  Christ  were  from  eternity  elected  or  ap- 
pointed to  a  state  of  justification.  To  comport  with  this,  the  posterity 
•f  Adam,  in  consequence  of  a  covenant  transaction  between  God  and 
him,  were,  before  their  existence,  appointed  to  a  state  of  condemna- 

ion. 

(2)  The  elect  are  not  justified  before  they  become  the  seed  of  Christ 
by  a  new  birth.  To  comport  with  this,  the  condemnation  pronounced 
©n  the  race  does  not  apply  to  the  individuals  of  Adam's  posterity  be- 
fore they  actually  exist,  and  therefore  not  until  they  are  shapen  in  ini- 
quity and  conceived  in  sin. 

(3)  The  first  holy  bias  which  is  given  to  the  seed  of  Christ  in  regene- 
ration, is  not  the  effect  but  the  antecedent  of  their  justification,  and  is 
produced  according  to  the  constitution  established  in  the  covenant  of 
redemption.  It  is  however  a  part  of  his  personal  reward.  To  com- 
port with  this,  the  first  evil  bias  to  which  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  left, 
is  not  the  effect  but  the  antecedent  of  their  condemnation,  and  is  the 
consequence  of  a  constitution  established  in  the  covenant  with  Adam 
before  the  fall,  by  which  the  union  of  moral  character  between  him  and 
his  posterity  was  fixed.  It  resulted  however  from  his  personal  con- 
demnation. 

(4)  The  seed  of  Christ  are  justified  as  fully  and  extensively  as  Christ 
himself,  being  entitled  to  a  deliverance  from  the  power  of  a  three-fold 
death.     To  comport  with  this,  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  condemned  as 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE,  147 

But  that  legal  oneness  which  can  make  a  holy  Per^- 
son  chargeable  in  law  and  justice  with  the  guilt  of  a 


fully  and  extensively  as  he  himself  was  to  a  three-fold  death.     But  he 
was  not  condemned  to  the  first  sin. 

(5)  The  essential  condition  on  which  the  seed  of  Christ  share  in  his 
justification,  is  that  they  resemble  him  in  the  temper  of  their  hearts. 
To  comport  with  this,  the  essential  condition  on  which  the  posterity  of 
Adam  share  in  his  condemnation,  is  that  they  partake  of  his  depra- 
vity. 

(6)  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  sole  ground  of  the  justification 
of  his  seed,  and  they  are  justified  for  his  righteousness  as  fully  as 
though  it  was  their  own.  To  comport  with  this,  as  far  as  the  nature 
of  things  will  admit,  the  offence  of  Adam  is  the  sole  ground  on  which 
the  public  sentence  against  his  posterity  rests,  and  they  are  condemned 
for  his  outward  act  as  fully  as  though  it  had  been  their  own.  I  say,  as  far 
as  the  nature  of  things  will  admit ;  for  there  is  this  difference  in  the  two 
cases  as  all  must  allow ;  the  personal  depravity  and  transgressions  of 
Adam's  race  are  a  meritorious  ground  of  condemnation,  but  the  per- 
gonal holiness  of  Christ's  seed  is  no  part  of  the  meritorious  ground  of 
their  justification. 

On  this  account,  and  because'it  is  abhorrent  to  all  our  ideas  ofjustice 
to  condemn  a  race,  vieived  as  personally  innocent,  on  account  of  the  sin 
of  another,  I  take  the  parallel  to  import  no  more  than  that  Adam's 
outioard  act,  as  being  the  index  of  the  hearts  of  all  his  posterity,  wa$ 
the  public  ground  of  condemning  his  infant  race  to  a  three-fold  death  ; 
and  I  think  the  Scriptures  support  this  idea. 

First,  the  sin  of  Adam  for  which  his  posterity  are  condemned,  was  a 
single  offence.  The  other  sins  of  his  life  had  no  such  influence  on 
them.  And  the  reason  is,  that  the  one  offence  by  which  he  himself  feli 
under  condemnation,  fixed,  and  by  fixing  discovered,  the  character  of 
all  his  race. 

Secondly,  the  offence  for  which  Adam  himself  was  condemned,  and 
for  which  his  race  are  condemned,  was  an  outward  and  visible  act. 
Not  a  hint  either  in  the  prohibition  or  sentence  about  the  sin  of  his 
heart. 

Thirdly,  it  must  always  tie  kept  in  mind  that  the  sentence  of  con- 
demnation which  came  on  Adam  and  his  race  was  a  public  judgment, 
pronounced  in  the  hearing  of  three  worlds,  and  intended  to  affect  the 
whole  human  race  in  a  state  of  infancy.  Now  it  would  not  have 
comported  with  God's  manner  of  dealing  with  his  creatures,  to  have 
founded  such  a  public  sentence  on  any  thing  but  visible  conduct;  and 
as  it  was  to  spend  itself  on  a  race  of  infants,  who,  though  worthy  to 
be  condemned  for  their  own  depravity,  would  be  incapable  of  any  vi- 
sible conduct  on  which  the  public  sentence  could  rest,  the  manifest  act 


*48  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

sinner,  and  render  his  sufferings  a  literal  and  legal  pu- 
nishment of  the  sins  of  the  latter,  and  cancel  the  sinner's 


of  their  federal  head,  which  at  once  fixed  and  discovered  their  charac- 
ter, was  made  the  public  ground  of  their  condemnation.  They  were 
condemned  for  his  act  just  as  though  it  had  been  their  own.  and  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  men  are  publicly  condemned  for  any  outward  ac- 
tion. There  are  two  things  necessary  to  give  complete  existence  to  sin, 
so  as  to  make  it  the  proper  ground  of  public  condemnation  ;  the  consent 
of  the  heart,  and  the  outward  act.  Now  Adam  for  himself  had  both 
of  these  parts  of  a  complete  transgression  ;  but  his  infant  seed  had  but 
one.  To  supply  this  defect,  his  outward  act  was  put  for  their  outward 
act,  as  being,  no  less  than  their  own,  a  faithful  index  of  their  hearts  : 
and  thus  a  complete  foundation  was  laid  for  their  public  condemnation, 
and  just  such  a  foundation  as  was  laid  for  the  public  condemnation  of 
Adam  himself.  He  was  publicly  condemned,  not  for  a  wicked  heart, 
but  for  an  outward  transgression.  But  he  would  not  have  been  con- 
demned for  that  outward  transgression  had  it  not  been  the  index  of 
his  heart.  So  they  are  publicly  condemned,  not  for  the  depravity  of 
their  hearts,  but  for  a  visible  act;  but  they  would  not  have  been  con- 
demned for  that  act  of  their  federal  head,  had  it  not  been  an  index  of 
their  hearts.  As  an  organ  to  express  the  tempers  of  all  men,  it  an- 
swered the  identical  purpose  of  an  external  act  dictated  by  the  univer- 
sal consent  and  performed  by  the  united  hands  of  the  whole  human 
race. 

Fourthly,  the  phraseology  of  the  parallel,  if  understood  according  to 
this  interpretation,  is  according  to  the  established  language  of  the 
world.  We  say  a  man  was  condemned  for  murdering  his  neighbour  : 
we  name  only  the  outward  action ;  and  yet  we  distinctly  understand 
that  he  would  not  have  been  condemned  for  that  act  had  it  not  been 
viewed  as  an  expression  of  malice  prepense  ;  for  instance,  had  it 
been  done  by  accident  or  in  a  paroxysm  of  madness.  This  is  the  uni- 
versal language  of  mankind,  as  it  is  also  of  the  Scriptures.  In  the 
form  of  expression  we  always  found  the  condemnation  on  the  outward 
action  alone,  but  our  meaning  is  that  it  rests  on  the  action  as  (he  index 
of  the  heart.  So  the  apostle,  in  the  form  of  his  expression,  founds  our 
condemnation  on  Adam's  act  alone,  but  his  meaning  is,  that  it  rests 
on  that  act  as  the  index  of  our  hearts.  At  least  if  he  is  thus  under- 
stood, he  is  understood  according  to  the  general  language  of  the  Bible, 
and  the  established  language  of  the  world. 

Fifthly,  none  can  ever  prove  that  the  apostle  means  more  ;  for  this  is 
the  only  passage  in  the  Bible  in  which  we  are  said  to  be  condemned  for 
Adam's  sin  to  more  than  temporal  calamity  and  death  ;  and  neither  in 
this  nor  in  any  other  place  is  it  hinted. that  we  are  condemned  for  the 
sin  of  Adam's  heart. 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  i  4£ 

law  obligation  to  suffer,  and  give  him  a  claim  on  justice 
for  a  discharge,  is  a  thing  impossible,  unless  two  moral 
agents  can  be  absolutely  and  indivisibly  one,  with  an 
intercommunion  of  moral  qualities  and  sensations,  which 
at  once  destroys  the  idea  of  one's  being  personally  holy 
and  the  other  personally  a  sinner.  There  must  upon  this 
plan  have  been  an  absolute  personal  identity  between 
Christ  and  the  elect,  even  while  the  latter  were  dead 
in  trespasses  and  sins  and  under  condemnation ;  and 
then  he  must  have  been  personally  a  sinner,  and  could 
not  have  conveyed  to  them  even  a  figurative  right- 
eousness. This  talk  about  a  legal  oneness  seems  to 
us  about  as  cabalistic  as  the  alleged  identity  between 
Christ  and  the  bread  and  wine  ;  and  it  manifestly  sprung 
from  the  same  origin,  the  confounding  of  the  figurative 
and  literal  meaning  of  texts.  Because  Christ  says, 
u  This  is  my  body,"  and  "  This  is  my  blood,"  the 
Romish  Church  will  have  it  that  it  is  literally  true  i 

The  true  reason  then  why  we  were  condemned  for  Adam's  sin,  is 
that  we  were  depraved,  and  in  the  sight  of  God  were  fit  subjects  for 
condemnation  ourselves.  And  this  has  been  the  opinion  of  some  of 
the  best  divines  of  the  Genevan  School.  We  then  are  treated  no  worse 
than  we  might  justly  have  been  treated  had  there  been  no  federal 
head.  If  it  was  just  to  withhold  divine  influence  from  Adam  and  the 
angels  before  they  had  sinned,  and  immediately  after  a  course  of  faith- 
ful service,  it  would  not  have  been  unjust  to  have  withheld  that  influ- 
ence from  an  infant  race  without  a  federal  head.  And  when  they  had 
thus  become  depraved,  and  fit  subjects  for  condemnation  in  the  sight  of 
-God,  justice  would  not  have  required  that  their  visible  condemnation 
should  rest  on  a  visible  ground.  They  might,  so  far  as  justice  was 
concerned,  have  been  condemned  for  their  own  depravity  without  the 
public  act  of  a  federal  head.  Adam's  sin  is  not  imputed  except  as  be- 
ing the  visible  act  by  which  their  hearts  were  revealed.  And  to  talk 
of  their  double  guilt,  (their  own  and  Adam's  united,)  is  like  talking  of 
the  double  guilt  of  a  murderer,  because  he  did  the  act  and  had  a 
wicked  heart. 

According  to  this  representation  there  was  no  such  legal  oneness  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  posterity  as  is  pleaded  for  in  the  system  under 
consideration. 

N  2 


150  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I, 

and  because  Christ  and  believers  are  said  to  be  "  one 
flesh,"  like  husband  and  wife,  such  a  oneness  must  be 
supposed  between  him  and  the  unregenerate  elect  as 
never  existed  between  husband  and  wife,  nor  ever,  so 
far  as  we  are  taught,  between  the  Divine  Persons. 
Certainly  in  the  offices  in  which  the  Sacred  Three  are 
exhibited,  there  is  no  such  confusion  of  Persons  as  is 
here  made  between  the  holy  Son  of  God  and  unsancti- 
fied  sinners.  Substitution  does  not  constitute  person- 
al identity.  All  that  is  true  in  the  case,  when  figures 
are  laid  aside,  is,  that  the  parties  are  treated  as  one. 
Christ  was  treated  as  a  sinner  on  our  account,  and  be- 
lievers, (not  the  unregenerate  elect,)  are  treated  as 
righteous  for  his  sake. 

This  we  understand  to  be  the  only  proper  idea  of 
imputation,  either  of  sin  or  of  righteousness.  Imputa- 
tion in  neither  case  implies  personal  identity,  nor  does 
it  consist  in  considering  the  parties  as  one,  (for  God 
considers  things  as  they  are,)  but  in  treating  them  as 
one.  I  am  far  from  denying  the  doctrine  of  imputa- 
tion, or  wishing  to  lay  aside  the  use  of  the  word,  and 
regret  that  some  have  thought  it  necessary  to  do  this, 
imputation  is  a  Gospel  term  and  ought  to  be  employ- 
ed. But  in  almost  every  instance  in  which  it  is  used 
in  the  Bible,  it  signifies  a  practical  reckoning  of  a  thing 
to  a  man* :  only  in  two  instances  have  1  found  it  used 
for  an  opinion  of  the  mindt,  and  never  for  any  thing 
which  implies  a  legal  oneness  between  two  persons. 
Calvin  also  explains  the  term  by  saying,  Christ  "  was 
made  a  Substitute  and  Surety  for  transgressors,  and 
was  treated  as  a  criminal  himselff."  I  plead  for  a 
practical  imputation,  and  deny  only  a  legal  one.     Nor 

*  Lev.  7.18.  &  17.4.    2  Sam.  19.  19. .  Ps.  32.  2.  with  ver.  1.    Rom. 
4.  3— 10,  22—  24.  &  5.  13.     2Cor.  5.  19.     Gal.  3.  6.     James  2.  23. 
t  1  Sam.  22.  15.  Hab.  1. 11. $  Gethsemaue  p.  157. 


CHAP.   Vll.J  LANGUAGE.  151 

do  I  make  it  to  consist  in  the  imputation  of  the  effects  of 
sin  and  righteousness.  I  fully  admit  the  imputation  of 
sin  and  righteousness  themselves,  as  to  every  practical 
purpose.  But  such  an  imputation  as  made  Christ 
guilty  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  makes  the  elect,  or 
even  believers,  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  I  do  not 
understand.  In  particular,  how  the  sins  of  the  elect 
could  be  so  imputed  to  Christ  that  he  should  be  legal- 
ly adjudged  to  suffer  for  them,  while  the  law  continued 
to  demand  punishment  of  the  elect  themselves,  and 
held  them  still  under  condemnation,  I  cannot  compre- 
hend. Here  are  the  two  condemnations  for  the  same 
offence  which  are  so  much  complained  of.  To  avoid 
this  difficulty  we  must  run  again  into  eternal  justifica- 
tion. And  even  here  we  are  not  safe  ;  for  the  law  still 
condemns  those  whom  grace  has  justified. 

It  is  said  that  God  could  not  justly  inflict  sufferings 
on  Christ  without  first  legally  imputing  to  him  our  sins, 
and  thus  attaching  to  him  a  just  liability  to  punishment. 
But  what  is  gained  by  this  resort  ?  How  did  God  le- 
gally impute  to  him  our  sins  ?  Why,  by  commanding 
him  to  die,  they  say.  It  comes  out  then  at  last,  that 
it  would  not  have  been  just  for  God  to  strike  had  he 
not  first  commanded  him  to  receive  the  blow.  But 
this  seems  a  strange  way  of  rendering  a  stroke  just 
which  otherwise  would  have  been  unjust. 

The  mediatorial  law  did  indeed  require  Christ  to 
suffer.  In  other  words,  God,  for  reasons  already  as- 
signed, commanded  him  to  lay  down  his  life.  But 
that  the  moral  law  which  man  had  broken,  the  moral 
law  which  was  the  exact  measure  of  justice,  required 
an  innocent  Person  to  suffer  for  the  guilty,  is  manifest- 
ly not  the  fact.  We  have  the  law  before  us,  and  know 
from  the  letter  of  it  what  it  required.  "  The  soul  that 
sinneth  it  shall  die  ;"  not,  it  or  a  Substitute,     That  ad- 


152  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

dition  is  supplied  by  the  imaginations  of  men.  The 
law  kn  jw  10  substitute.  It  demanded  the  death  of  the 
identical  person  >vko  had  sinned,  and  not  the  death  of 
another.  And  unless  another  could  become  the  same 
person  by  an  intercommunion  of  consciousness  and 
sensation,  so  that  the  punishment  would  attach  to  the 
identical  agent  who  had  sinned,  the  law  could  not  de- 
mand his  death.  There  could  be  no  commutation  of 
persons  here  as  in  a  money  transaction.  Another  may 
assume  my  pecuniary  obligation,  because  he  can  give 
me  so  much  of  his  property  ;  but  another  cannot  "  take 
upon  himself  my  person,"  and  "  sustain  my  person,"  so 
as  to  render  him  the  "  it"  which  the  law  declared 
should  die.     This  is  what  no  power  could  accomplish. 

Christ  therefore  could  not  sustain  our  legal  punish- 
ment, or  the  literal  penalty  of  the  law.  If  the  law  had 
said  that  we  or  a  Substitute  should  die,  this  might  have 
been  the  case  ;  but  it  said  no  such  thing.  The  law  is 
before  us,  and  we  see  with  our  eyes  that  it  contains  no 
such  clause.  The  plain  truth  is,  that  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  not  our  punishment,  but  only  came  in  its 
room.  They  were  not  the  death  of  the  identical  "  it" 
that  had  sinned.  They  answered  indeed  the  same 
purpose  as  related  to  the  honour  of  the  law,  but  they 
were  not  the  same  thing,  and  could  not  be  the  same 
thing  without  an  absolute  personal  identity.  So  far 
from  enduring  our  punishment,  the  plain  fact  is,  he 
died  to  prevent  our  punishment. 

But  it  is  still  urged  with  a  surprising  degree  of  tenaci- 
ty, that  the  honour  of  God  and  the  eternal  principles  of 
right  bound  him  to  punish  sin.  But  he  did  not  punish 
sin ;  for  the  sinner  escaped  and  the  Innocent  suffered. 
It  is  said  that  'truth  required  him  to  punish.  Then 
truth  failed  ;  for  certainly  he  did  not  punish  Paul,  and 
Christ  was  not  a  sinner.     But  it  is  not  so  that  a  law- 


CHAP.   VII.]  LANGUAGE.  153 

giver  pledges  his  truth  for  the  uniform  execution  of 
every  sanction.  The  penalt}r  is  not  of  the  nature  of  a 
prediction  or  promise,  but  merely  states  what  trans- 
gression deserves  and  may  ordinarily  expect.  Other- 
wise every  act  of  mercy  in  human  governments  is  a  de- 
parture from  verity*. 

It  is  a  part  of  the  system  that  Christ  suffered  in  kind 
precisely  what  was  denounced  against  the  elect.  What, 
was  he  given  up  to  unholy  and  tormenting  passions  ? 
for  we  have  seen  that  such  an  abandonment  was  the 
spiritual  death  included  in  the  sentence  of  the  law. 
And  what  can  be  meant  by  his  being  the  object  of 
God's  "  disapprobation,"  and  one  whom  he  could  not 
"approve  and  justify,"  unless  the  words  are  used  in  a 
highly  figurative  sense,  to  denote  the  treatment  which 
it  was  proper  for  him  to  receive  ?  That  God  should  in 
his  heart  regard  with  holy  complacency  in  one  view5 
and  with  infinite  indignation  in  another,  the  same  iden- 
tical Person,  with  an  unmixed  character,  was  mani- 
festly as  impossible  as  for  the  bread  and  wine  to  be  the 
real  presence.  That  he  regarded  him  as  an  object 
standing  to  receive  the  treatment  due  to  sinners,  (so 
far  as  was  necessary  to  answer  the  purpose,)  while  yet 
in  every  view  he  regarded  his  Person  with  unmingled 
love,  is  the  whole  truth  wThen  figures  are  laid  aside. 
Through  all  the  incarnation  the  Father  purposely 
showed  that  he  was  not  angry  but  well  pleased  with 
the  Son,  that  he  was  not  punishing  him  as  an  enemy 
who  had  a  separate  interest  from  his  own,  that  he  felt 
for  him  through  the  whole  scene,  and  that  what  he  laid 
on  him  was  a  sacrifice  of  the  parental  as  well  as  of  the 
filial  feelings.     This  appeared  in  bis  causing  the  ele- 

*  That  expression  in  the  85th  Psalm,  "Mercy  and  truth  are  met  to- 
gether," refers,  I  suppose,  to  God's  faithfulness  in  executing  his  pro- 
mises.    See  a  note  near  the  conclusion  of  the  6th  chapter. 


154  FIGURATIVE  [PART  T. 

ments,  diseases,  and  demons  to  obey  him,  in  the  an- 
swer of  his  prayer  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  and  in  the 
very  scene  of  his  sufferings,  in  the  repeated  declara- 
tion from  heaven,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased,"  and  in  the  mission  of  angels  to 
support  him  in  the  wilderness  and  in  the  garden.  In- 
deed the  moment  you  lose  sight  of  the  unabated  love 
of  the  Father,  the  death  of  Christ  no  longer  appears 
that  wonderful  expression  of  God's  determination  to 
execute  wrath  on  future  transgressors.  In  figurative 
language,  I  have  no  objection  to  saying,  with  our  cate- 
chism, that  he  endured  the  wrath  of  God.  But  if  this 
is  construed  to  mean  that  he  verily  believed  the  Father 
was  angry  with  him,  or  to  mean  any  thing  mere  than 
the  withdrawment  of  the  divine  presence,  and  the  im- 
position of  amazing  sufferings  of  body  and  soul,  I  must 
demur. 

The  life-blood  of  the  system  lies  in  the  assumption 
that  Christ  bore  the  exact  punishment  of  such  a  num- 
ber of  sins,  in  measure  as  well  as  kind  ;  and  men  have 
talked  with  great  precision  about  the  necessity  of  pu- 
nishing "  each_and  every  sin,"  and  of  laying  "  each 
and  every  sin"  of  the  elect  upon  a  substitute*.  The 
meaning  is  not  that  he  bore  as  much  as  all  the  elect 
deserved  for  an  hour  or  a  day ;  (for  why  should  he 
suffer  exactly  what  was  due  to  them  for  a  season,  and 
not  what  was  due  to  them  unlimitedly  ?)  but  the  whole 
amount  of  what  they  deserved  to  eternity.  This  is 
manifestly  the  meaning.  He  endured  "  all  that  these 
iniquities  deserved,"  li  the  punishment  due  to  the  sins 
of  the  elect,"  ;t  the  idem,"  "  all  that  [they  were]  con- 
demned to  sustain,"  "  whatsoever  was  due  to  the  elect 
for  their  sin,"  nothing   "  less  than   the  delinquents — 

*  Delegates  from  Drent  in  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Acts  of  Synod,  Pan 
HI.  p.  209. 


CHAP.   VII. J  LANGUAGE.  156 

would  themselves  have  suffered,"  that  which  was  "  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  guilt  of  the  many  sinners  he 
had  undertaken  to  redeem,"  that  which  wras  "  in  every 
respect  commensurate  to  the  requirements  of  justice," 
"  not  a  single  pang  more  or  less  than  the  law  could 
have  righteously  inilicted  on  the  sinners  themselves," 
<;  the  apportioned  desert  of  imputed  sin."  "  The 
whole  debt  [was]  required  of  him."  "  The  redemp- 
tion price  [bore]  an  exact  proportion  to  the  number 
of  persons  redeemed,  and  to  the  guilt  and  punishment 
from  which  they  are  redeemed  :"  "  for  without  a  pro- 
portion between  the  guilt  and  the  punishment  justice 
is  not  satisfied."  "  The  sanction  of  the  divine  law 
is  irreversible,"  and  cannot  "  be  annulled  or  relax- 
ed*." 

Now  if  it  was  so,  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  was  gain- 
ed to  the  universe  by  the  death  of  Christ.  We  have 
been  accustomed  to  regard  his  substitution  as  a  glo- 
rious expedient  to  prevent  misery ;  but  upon  this  plan 
every  scintilla  of  wretchedness  w hie h  Satan  ever  plot- 
ted against  the  creation  of  God.  was  endured.  But 
there  is  a  stronger  difficulty  still.  A  single  sin  de- 
serves an  endless,  which  is  in  fact  an  infinite  punish- 
ment. The  sufferings  of  Christ  then  must  have  been 
infinite  for  a  single  sin :  and  of  course  for  a  single  sin 
his  Godhead  must  have  suffered ;  for  to  talk  of  a  finite 
nature's  sustaining  infinite  misery  in  a  day,  however 
supported  by  divinity,  is,  to  say  the  least,  using  words 
without  a  meaning.  His  Godhead  then  must  have 
suffered  infinite  misery,  and  yet  but  a  single  sin  was 
atoned  for.  How  then  was  all  the  guilt  of  all  the  elect 
to  be  expiated?  Could -he  endure  more,  infinitely 
more,  than  infinite  misery  ?  misery  as  many  times  in- 
finite, if  I  may  so  say,  as  the  number  of  sins  to  be  par- 

*  Gethsemane. 


156  FIGURATIVE  fPART  I. 

doned  ?     This  is  probably  the  most  extravagant  opi- 
nion that  was  ever  broached  in  the  Christian  Church. 
And  for  it  there  is  not  a  particle  of  countenance  in  the 
word  of  God.     Where  is  the  intensity  of  our  Saviour's 
sufferings  measured  ?  What  saith  the  Scripture  ?  "Christ 
hath  redeemed   us  from   the   curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us."     But  how  a  curse  for  us  ?  by 
suffering  the  infinite  pains  of  damnation  ?     No  such 
thing:  "for  it  is  written,   Cursed  is  every  one  that 
kangeth  on  a  tree*."     For  a   Person   of  such  infinite 
dignity  to  die  on  a  tree,  a  death  which  had  been  pro- 
nounced in  Israel  accursed!,  was  as  strong  an  expres- 
sion of  every  thing  which  punishment   could  express, 
(except  the  literal  and  legal   imputation   of  personal 
guilt,)  as   could  have    been  made  by  the  eternal   de- 
struction of  men.     This   was  enough,  and   the   endu- 
rance of  the  same  misery  in  measure  and  kind  was  by 
no  means  necessary.       If  to  the  purpose  of  supporting 
the  divine  law,  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  considering  his 
infinite  interest   in  the  Father's  love,  were  equivalent 
to  the  eternal  misery  of  those  for  whom  he  died,  it 
was  sufficient :  and   if  to  such  a  purpose  they  were 
equivalent  to  the  eternal  misery  of  all  Adam's  race, 
they  were  sufficient,  if  expressly  endured  for  so  many, 
to  make  atonement  "  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world." 
Certain  it  is  that  he  must  have  died  to  atone  for  a 
single  sin,  for  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  was 
no  remission^.      It  is  therefore  fruitless  to  attempt  to 
decide  the  number  for  whom  he  expiated  by  the  seve- 
rity of  his  sufferings§. 

*  Gal.  3.  13. 4  Deut.  21.  23. %  Heb.  9.  22. 

$  A  writer  of  much  greater  general  consistency  allows  himself  still 
to  reason  thus  :  "As  all  sins  are  particular,  there  can  be  no  such  thin;; 
as  a  general  atonement  unless  it  has  respect  to  all  the  individual  acts. 
— If  justice  required  that  any  one  of  these  sins  should  be  punished  in 
the  sinner  if  he  endures  the  punishment  himself,  it  must  equally  require 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  \5*i 

It  follows  from  the  foregoing  reasonings,  that  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  a  literal  satisfaction  of 
law  and  justice,  even  in  behalf  of  believers,  much  less 
in  behalf  of  the  unregenerate  elect.  The  law  is  be- 
fore us,  and  if  we  can  read  it  we  can  see  for  ourselves 
what  would  have  been  a  literal  satisfaction  of  its  claims. 
It  never  demanded  the  death  of  the  innocent  for  the 
guilty,  but  the  death  of  the  identical  persons  who  had 
sinned  :  and  till  this  is  yielded  the  law  is  not  literally 
satisfied,  and  justice,  (for  the  law  is  the  exact  measure 
of  justice,)  is  not  satisfied.  Justice  did  not  take  its 
course,  for  the  Innocent  suffered  and  the  guilty  escap- 
ed. But  the  authority  of  the  law  is  supported,  even 
in  the  event  of  the  pardon  of  believers,  (not  in  the 
event  of  the  pardon  of  the  unregenerate  elect,  for  that 
would  ruin  the  law,  and  none  the  less  for  their  being 

that  every  one  of  them  should  be  imputed  to  any  Surety  who  undeiN" 
takes  to  satisfy  in  his  place.  An  atonement  therefore  cannot  be,  as 
some  suppose,  a  general  expression  of  God's  disapprobation  of  sin  with- 
out regard  to  particular  sins. — All  the  arguments  which  demonstrate 
the  necessity  of  an  atonement,  prove  that  its  nature  must  be  a  satis- 
faction to  divine  justice  for  particular  offences;  and  if  general,  it  is  a 
satisfaction  for  all  the  particular  sins  ever  committed. — His  death  was 
therefore  a  real  expiation,  a  full  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  which 
were  imputed  to  him.  If  he  died  for  all  men,  then  he  did  make  satisfac- 
tion for  all  and  every  sin  ever  committed  in  the  world,  for  the  unpar-? 
donable  sin  and  for  final  impenitence  as  well  as  others. — If  Christ 
died  for  all  men,  then  he  died  for  all  the  sins  of  men.  Therefore  he 
atoned  for  those  sins  which  are  never  pardoned.  But  what  sort  of  an 
atonement  is  that  for  a  sin  which  does  not  even  render  it  possible  for 
the  punishment  of  it  to  be  removed  ?  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  final  impenitence  and  unbelief,  never  can  be  pardoned  ;  and  to 
suppose  them  atoned  for  is  absurd." 

The  Scripture  declares  two  things  ;  that  Christ  suffered  for  our  sins, 
and  that  he  rendered  it  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  for  all 
the  sins  of  believers  to  be  pardoned.  But  that  he  bore  each  and  every 
sin  even  of  the  elect,  it  no  where  says.  Such  a  particularization  is  un- 
known to  the  Scriptures,  and  is  a  mere  human  inference  from  the  as- 
sumption that  sin  was  literally  and  legally  punished  in  him.     But  what 

o 


158  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

elect ;)  and  this  was  enough  to  satisfy  the  Protector  of 
the  law.  This  was  the  satisfaction  really  made.  The 
Protector  of  the  law  was  satisfied :  and  men  in  ex- 
pressing this  truth  in  figurative  language,  said  that 
the  law  was  satisfied.  At  length,  when  a  system  was 
to  be  supported,  the  figurative  origin  of  the  phrase 
was  forgotten,  and  the  literal  meaning  was  transmuted 
to  marble  and  erected  in  the  Church  as  a  standard  of 
orthodoxy. 

If  law  and  justice  were  not  literally  satisfied  even  in 
regard  to  believers,  then  law  and  justice  do  not  adjudge 
to  believers  a  discharge,  much  less  to  the  unregene- 
rate  elect.  Law  and  justice  eternally  demand  the 
death  of  the  persons  who  have  once  sinned ;  and  the 
security  of  believers  is,  that  they  "  are  not  under  the 
law  but  under  grace*."     They  really  deserve  to  suffer 

does  the  writer  mean  by  Christ's  bearing  each  and  every  sin?  Doe? 
he  mean  that  he  suffered  more  for  a  thousand  sins  than  for  a  hundred  ? 
This  is  not  his  meaning,  for  he  plainly  tells  us,  "  We  do  not  entertain 
the  opinion  that  the  Redeemer  suffered  just  so  much  for  the  sins  of  A, 
and  so  much  for  B,  Sec.  and  if  more  had  been  intended  to  be  saved, 
that  he  must  have  suffered  so  much  more.'1  What  then  does  he  mean : 
If  Christ  did  not  suffer  more  for  a  thousand  sins  than  for  a  hundred, 
how  were  a  thousand  sins  rather  than  a  hundred  u  imputed  to  him"  ? 
and  how  did  he  satisfy  for  "  all  the  individual  acts"  of  the  thousand  ? 
If  nothing  more  is  meant  by  his  bearing  a  million  of  Paul's  sins  rather 
than  a  thousand,  but  that  he  suffered  for  Paul's  sins  in  general,  that 
they  all  might  be  pardoned  when  he  should  believe,  then  the  argument 
founded  on  this  particularization  is  certainly  fallacious.  Then  he  did 
not  bear  a  precise  number  of  sins ;  and  then  the  only  question  is,  did 
his  general  suffering  for  sin  render  it  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the 
law  for  the  elect  only  to  be  pardoned  upon  their  believing,  or  for  all 
-men  to  be  pardoned  if  they  would  believe  ?  If  the  latter,  then  his 
death  had  sufficient  respect  to  the  sins  of  all  men  to  constitute  it  a  real 
atonement  for  all.  But  this  dividing  up  of  the  atonement  between  par- 
ticular sins,  (inferring  that  it  was  not  for  this  and  that  unrenounced 
transgression,)  as  though  it  was  for  sin  in  the  abstract,  and  not  CoK 
Jhe  sinner,  is  what  the  word  of  God  knows  nothing  about. 

*  Rom.  6.  14. 


CHAP.   VII.]  LANGUAGE.  159 

as  much  as  though  Christ  had  never  died.  To  them 
eternal  punishment,  though  it  would  be  a  breach  of 
promise,  would  not  be  unjust.  It  would  indeed  be  un- 
just to  Christ  thus  to  deprive  him  of  his  stipulated  re- 
ward ;  but  it  would  not  be  unjust  to  them,  because  they 
personally  deserve  it.  They  do  not  merit  what  he 
merits.  They  cannot  claim  from  justice  what  he  claims 
from  justice.  They  have  the  use  of  his  righteousness, 
or  a  gracious  title  to  justification  on  his  account ;  but 
his  righteousness  is  not  literally  their  righteousness, 
but  only  comes  in  its  room.  Otherwise  there  is  nei- 
ther grace  nor  pardon  in  their  acquittal.  If  you  say 
that  to  them  it  is  grace  and  pardon,  though  to  Christ 
it  is  an  act  of  justice,  this  is  precisely  what  we  mean  ; 
and  then  we  ought  to  hear  no  more  of  their  claim  on 
justice.  All  that  a  Substitute  could  do  for  them  was  to 
reconcile  their  pardon  with  the  honour  of  the  law;  but 
he  could  not  lay  an  obligation  on  the  law  to  justify 
them,  as  if  they  had  a  literal  righteousness.  By  his  obe- 
dience "unto  death"  he  could  create  an  obligation  on  the 
Father  to  fulfil  his  covenant,  but  he  could  not  bind  the 
law  to  repeal  its  sentence,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth  it 
shall  die,"  and  to  declare  transgressors  justified:  for 
that  after  all  would  have  been  a  justification  by  law. 
It  is  said  that  the  justification  of  believers  is  an  act 
both  of  mercy  and  justice.  If  it  is  meant  that  it  is  an 
act  of  mercy  to  them  and  of  justice  to  Christ,  I  agree. 
But  if  it  is  meant  that  it  is  both  mercy  and  justice  to 
them,  it  is  like  saying  that  a  man  delivers  his  neighbour 
a  sum  of  money  as  a  gratuitous  gift,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  pay  a  debt  of  that  amount.  No  proposition  can 
be  more  contradictory  than  that  the  justification  of  a 
transgressor  is  a  legal  transaction,  or  that  a  sinner  is 
literally  righteous,  or  that  a  man  is  justly  entitled  to 
pardon. 


160  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

But  you  say  that  though  the  believer  is  undeserving 
in  himself,  the  Redeemer  has  made  over  to  him  his  own 
claim,  and  given  him  a  right  to  plead  that  at  the  bar 
of  eternal  justice  ;  just  as  a  man  makes  over  to  another 
a  pecuniary  claim  against  a  third  person.     This  notion 
of  a  commercial   transfer  has  occasioned  all  the  mis- 
take.   The  creditor,  it  is  said,  only  demands  his  money  ; 
and  if  the  debt  is  paid  by  a  third  person,  justice  can 
ask  no  more.  This  would  be  a  fair  illustration  if  Christ 
had  actually  paid  our  debt ;  but  he  only  prepared  the 
way,  as  we  have  seen,    for  the  debt  to  be  freely  for- 
given.    The  case  adduced  therefore  is  really  no  illus- 
tration.    In  an  affair  of  debt,  the  creditor  has  indeed 
no  just  claim  for  any  thing  but  his  money.     He  has  no 
right  to  prevent  a  third  person  from  making  a  present 
to  the  debtor.     When  that  third  person  comes  forward 
and  pays  the  debt,  he  really  makes  a  present  to  the 
debtor  of  the  whole  amount.     He  actually  increases 
the  debtor's  property  ;  and  the  creditor's  claim  is  as 
really   cancelled  as    though   the    money   had  passed 
through  the  debtor's  own  hands.     It  is  easy  thus  to 
transfer  property  by  gift,  but  not  thus  easy  to  transfer 
personal  merit,  with  which  moral  or  distributive  justice 
is  concerned.     In  this  difference  lies  the  fault  of  the  il- 
lustration.    A  man  may  make  over  his  property  and 
render  a  pauper  rich ;  but  a  holy  person  cannot  make 
over  his  moral  character  and  render  a  sinner  personal- 
ly righteous,  nor  transfer  the  benefit  of  his  sufferings 
so  as  to  render  a  transgressor  personally  undeserving 
of  punishment.     By  suffering  for  him  he  may  render  it 
unnecessary  to  the  public  good  for  him  to  suffer ;  and 
the  ruler,  finding  the  necessities  of  the  law  answered, 
though  not  one  of  its  demands,  may  graciously  forgive  : 
yea  he  may  have  promised  to  forgive,  and  may  be 
bouiH^  to  pardon  by  truth  and  wisdom^   and  even  by 


CHAP.   VII.]  LANGUAGE.  161 

justice  to  the  substitute,  but  not  by  justice  to  the  sinner 
himself,  so  long  as  it  remains  true  that  he  personally 
deserves  punishment. 

But  let  us  examine  this  subject  to  the  bottom.  A 
man  personally  deserving  to  die,  it  is  said,  may  de- 
mand from  justice,  in  other  words  from  law,  an  acquit- 
tal, under  the  claim  of  another  who  has  suffered  for 
him.  But  how  came  the  substitute  by  such  a  claim  ? 
He  may  indeed  have  a  demand  on  the  ruler,  founded 
on  a  promise,  for  the  pardon  of  the  offender  ;  but  who 
gave  him  a  claim  on  the  law  for  a  sentence  that  the 
transgressor  has  never  broken  it?  or  a  demand  bind- 
ing the  law  to  pardon  ?  (the  law  pardon ! )  or  binding 
the  law  to  accept  an  innocent  victim  for  the  guilty  ? 
The  law,  which,  (to  make  the  case  a  parallel  one,)  is 
the  exact  and  unchanging  measure  of  justice,  said  that 
the  sinner,  not  an  innocent  substitute,  should  die.  That 
then,  and  nothing  but  that,  is  the  claim  of  justice, — the 
unchangeable,  indestructible  claim  of  justice.  How 
came  a  substitute  possessed  of  a  demand  which  anni- 
hilates this,  and  renders  the  immutable  claim  of  justice 
unjust?  Even  the  administrator  of  the  law  cannot  be 
bound  by  justice,  (other  than  that  justice  to  the  substi- 
tute which  arises  out  of  a  promise  of  reward,)  to  accept 
the  sufferings  of  an  innocent  person  in  the  room  of  the 
guilty.  How  can  he  be  ?  If  the  brother  of  a  murderer 
comes  forward  to-day  and  offers  to  die  in  the  crimi- 
nal's stead,  are  the  rulers  of  the  land  bound  by  justice 
to  accept  the  substitution  and  to  let  the  murderer  es- 
cape ?  But  how  came  they  bound  ?  Their  law,  which, 
(to  make  it  a  parallel  case,)  is  the  exact  measure  of 
justice,  said  nothing  about  a  substitute,  but  merely 
that  the  murderer  should  die.  That  then,  and  nothing 
but  that,  is  justice,  or  can  become  justice  ;  and  not;  ing 
else  can  annihilate  justice,  and  take  its  place,  its  name, 
O  2 


162  FIGURATIVE  [PART  U 

aid  its  nature.  On  what  principle  then  can  the  sub- 
stitute force  himself  upon  them,  and  in  the  name  of 
justice  demand  the  release  of  one  whom  their  law  and 
justice  condemn  ? 

But  suppose  the  rulers  have  stipulated  with  the  inno- 
cent brother  to  accept  his  substitution,  and  have  thus 
allured  him  on  to  death,  nay,  have  inflicted  the  stroke 
with  their  own  hand,  are  they,  (but  they  are  still  not 
their  law,) — are  they  not  now  bound  by  justice  to 
release  the  criminal  ?  I  answer  frankly,  not  by  justice 
to  the  criminal,  but  certainly  by  both  truth  and  justice 
to  the  substitute.  Here  is  a  claim  of  justice  to  be 
satisfied.  By  what  ?  By  the  fulfilment  of  a  contract 
on  the  part  of  the  rulers.  But  we  have  been  speaking 
of  a  claim  of  justice  supposed  to  have  been  satisfied  by 
the  death  of  the  innocent  brother.  By  this  insensible 
transition  from  one  claim  to  another  the  confusion  is 
introduced*.  No  one  doubts  that  it  is  an  act  of  jus- 
tice to  Christ  to  do  to  those  for  whom  he  died  accord- 
ing to  all  the  antecedent  stipulations,  and  therefore  to 
regenerate  the  elect  and  to  justify  and  save  believers. 
But  we  are  not  speaking  of  a  claim  of  justice  to  be 
satisfied  by  an  act  of  the  Father,  but  a  claim  supposed 
to  have  been  satisfied  by  the  death  of  the  Son  ;  not  of 
a  debt  of  reward  due  from  the  Father  to  the  Son,  but  of 
a  debt  of  suffering  due  from  sinners  to  the  divine  law. 
It  is  admitted  that  Christ  by  his  obedience  "  unto  death" 
rendered  a  stipulated  service  which  justly  entitled  him 

•  Thus  Dr.  Owen  :  "  He  who  without  the  consideration  of  the  obla- 
tion of  Christ  could  no  but  punish  sin,  that  oblation  being  made,  cannot 
punish  those  sin-  lor  which  Christ  offered  himself.  Yea  he  is  more 
bound  in  strict  right  and  injustice,  in  respect  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  confer 
grace  and  glory  on  all  those  for  whom  he  died*."  We  ought  to  settle 
once  for  all  whether  God  owes  the  accpuittal  to  Christ  or  to  the  sinner. 
and  keep  to  one  point. 

*  Gethsemane,  p.  83. 


:iIAP.  VII. J  LANGUAGE,  183 

to  the  promised  reward  ;  but  this  is  not  saying  that  by 
his  expiation  he  paid  to  eternal  and  immutable  jus- 
tice, whose  rights  are  not  conventional,  all  that  was 
due  from  believing  sinners.  He  created  a  debt  in  fa- 
vour  of  himself,  but  did  not  pay  what  sinners  owed. 
He  made  out  a  claim  on  justice  by  his  obedience,  but 
did  not  satisfy  one  by  his  expiation.  After  the  Fa- 
ther had  constituted  him  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and 
had  publicly  promised  to  accept  his  sufferings  in  be- 
half of  believers,  and  had  secretly  covenanted  to  com- 
municate faith  to  the  elect,  he  owed  it  to  him  to  do  as 
he  had  said.  This  was  a  claim  against  the  Father. 
But  the  question  is  whether  the  atonement  satisfied  a 
claim  which  the  divine  law  had  against  sinners.  This 
was  a  claim  for  the  death  of  the  transgressor  in  person, 
and  not  of  an  innocent  substitute.  This  claim  was 
certainly  not  enforced  ;  but  instead  of  that  enforcement 
the  death  of  Christ  was  accepted  as  ah  equal  honour 
to  the  divine  law.  This  is  the  plain  matter  of  fact  in 
whatever  language  it  may  be  wrapped  up, 

But  it  is  asked,  if  one  person  has  a  just  claim  on  an- 
other for  kind  treatment,  can  he  not  transfer  that  claim 
no  less  than  a  pecuniary  one  to  a  third  person  ?  This 
question  cannot  refer  to  the  claim  of  Christ  to  be  him- 
self the  object  of  the  Father's  love,  (for  that  of  course 
he  cannot  transfer,)  but  to  his  claim  to  the  salvation  01 
believers.  Can  this  claim  be  transferred  to  them  ?  If  a 
child,  you  say,  visits  one  whom  his  father  has  befriend- 
ed, he  feels  himself  invested  with  a  personal  claim  to  a 
kind  reception,  and  if  otherwise  treated,  resents  it  as  a 
personal  injury,  and  not  merely  as  an  act  of  injustice 
to  his  father.  Granted.  But  who  gave  him  that 
claim  ?  Not  his  father,  but  his  God.  The  fifth  com- 
mandment has  invested  every  man  with  a  right  to  be 
treated  according  to  the  relations  which  he  sustains, 


164  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

The  son  of  a  king  is  entitled  to  more  respect  than  the 
child  of  a  beggar,  and  the  son  of  a  benefactor  stands  in 
a  different  relation  from  the  son  of  an  enemy.  The 
child  of  Your  friend  has  a  claim  of  that  general  sort 
which  is  possessed  by  your  neighbour,  and  approach- 
ing to  that  which  your  orvn  child  possesses.  Your  own 
child  has  a  peculiar  personal  claim  upon  you  ;  but  did 
you  give  him  that  claim  against  yourself?  No,  it  was 
given  him  by  God.  But  who  or  what  gave  the  Medi- 
ator a  claim  to  the  pardon  of  a  sinner,  but  the  promise 
of  God  ?  That  promise  fastens  the  claim  immoveably 
in  himself,  and  created  no  such  relation  for  the  sinner 
as  gave  him  a  right  by  any  law  to  urge  the  claim  in  his 
own  person.  It  cannot  possibly  be  in  him  unless  he 
has  actually  performed  the  same  service,  or  is  abso- 
lutely identified  with  the  Person  of  Christ.  The  claim 
of  the  Redeemer  to  the  salvation  of  believers  has  never 
been  transferred  or  alienated,  but  remains  in  himself. 
He  has  not  put  it  into  their  hands  as  though  about  to 
Jeave  them,  and  sent  them  into  the  world  endowed 
and  alone.  No,  he  abides  with  them,  and  is  himself 
at  once  their  Guardian  and  their  title  to  life.  It  is  for 
his  own  mere  sake,  from  direct  regard  to  him,  and  to 
satisfy  a  claim  which  his  obedience  created,  and  which 
must  be  unalienably  his  own  so  long  as  it  remains  true 
that  the  obedience  was  his  and  not  another's,  that  they 
receive  their  mercies  from  hour  to  hour. 

This  love  of  independence  which  grasps  the  thought 
of  having  the  claim  in  our  own  possession,  is  much 
like  the  wish  of  the  heir  to  get  the  inheritance  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  parent ;  or  that  propensity  in  men, 
which,  though  not  opposed  to  receiving  existence  from 
God,  cleaves  to  the  idea  of  having  been  set  forward 
with  a  self-moving  power.     We  have  indeed  a  claim. 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  165 

but  it  is  of  a  far  different  sort ;  not  on  justice,  but  on  a 
promise  dictated  by  free,  rich,  and  amazing  grace. 

On  the  whole,  if  God  should  refuse  to  regenerate 
the  elect  or  to  save  believers,  in  other  words,  should 
treat  any  of  Adam's  race  less  favourably  than  was 
stipulated  in  his  public  or  private  promises,  it  might 
be  a  breach  of  faith,  it  might  be  a  dereliction  of  the 
principles  of  wisdom  and  general  goodness,  it  might  be 
injustice  to  the  Mediator,  but  it  would  not  be  injus- 
tice to  men  :  that  is,  it  would  not  be  treating  them 
worse  than  they  personally  deserve,  or  worse  than  they 
must  continue  to  deserve,  though  omnipotence  were 
exhausted  in  transferring  guilt  and  righteousness,  so 
long  as  it  shall  remain  true  that  they  have  ever  sin- 
ned. 

And  this  accords  with  the  consciousness  of  every 
true  believer,  whatever  systematic  phrases  he  may  be 
accustomed  to  use.  When  he  is  humbled  in  the  dust 
at  the  feet  of  his  Maker,  it  is  farthest  from  his  thoughts 
to  make  demands  on  justice.  His  language  then  is, 
"  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner."  And  when  he  ob- 
tains a  sense  of  pardoning  love,  he  is  the  more  con- 
founded, and  opens  not  his  mouth  for  shame,  because 
a  holy  God  is  pacified  towards  him  for  all  that  he  has 
done.  Every  day  of  his  life  he  confesses  that  itwould 
still  be  just  in  God  to  send  him  to  perdition.  And  if  it 
would  be  just,  justice  still  demands  his  death.  And  if 
justice  demands  his  death,  justice  is  not  satisfied. 

The  literal  truth  is,  that  Christ  answered  all  the  pur- 
poses to  the  divine  law  which  could  have  been  accom- 
plished by  the  actual  satisfaction  of  its  demands 
against  believers,  and  the  actual  satisfaction  of  justice 
upon  them.  And  this  being  done,  it  may  be  said  by 
an  easy  figure,  that  law  and  justice  are  satisfied.  And 
though  these  expressions  are  not  scriptural  but  of  hu» 


166  FIGURATIVE  [PART  ft 

man  invention,  I  do  not  object  to  their  use  in  prayer 
and  popular  discourses.  But  every  divine  and  every 
Christian  ought  to  know  that  they  are  figurative  ex- 
pressions, and  not  attempt  to  draw  from  them  literal 
conclusions. 

The  foregoing  remarks  apply  to  believers.  But  in 
order  to  bring  this  notion  of  a  literal  satisfaction  to 
bear  upon  the  limitation  of  the  atonement,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  make  out  a  satisfaction  for  the  elect  as  elect. 
Then  from  the  time  it  was  made,  and  even  from  the 
time  that  bonds  were  given  to  make  it,  they  were  more 
than  justified  in  our  sense  of  the  word  ;  they  were  ac- 
quitted by  law  and  justice,  in  other  words,  could  de- 
mand of  law  and  justice  a  sentence  that  they  were  as 
free  from  sin  as  the  angels  in  heaven.  And  then  du- 
ring all  the  days  of  their  unregeneracy,  law  and  justice 
had  no  demands  against  them.  No  condemnation  or 
even  censure  could  reach  them.  Amidst  all  their  rebel- 
lions and  blasphemies,  they  stood  as  perfectly  acquitted 
as  Gabriel ;  law  and  justice  both  bending  over  them 
with  their  protecting  shield,  and  constantly  pronoun- 
cing them  as  spotless  as  heaven. 

This  is  not  Scripture.  Christ  never  in  any  sense 
made  over  his  claim  to  the  unregenerate  elect.  They 
had  no  claim  but  to  perdition,  lying  at  full  length  un- 
der the  undiminished  pressure  of  the  curse, — "  children 
of  wrath  even  as  others."  Peter  himself  had  no  right- 
eousness till  he  believed.  "  Christ  is  the  end  of 
the  law  for  righteousness"  only  "  to  every  one  thatbe- 
lieveth  ;"  and  it  is  constantly  called  "  the  righteousness 
of  faith"  "  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith,"  "  the 
righteousness  which  is  by  faith"  "  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  God  by  faith,"  "  the  righteousness  of  God 
which  is  by  faith,"  and  the  righteousness  to  which  man 


CHAP.   VII.]  LANGUAGE.  167 

believeth  with  the  heart.*     Christ   could  not  be  the 
end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to   unbelievers.     He 
could  not  answer  the  purpose  to  the   law  of  a  literal 
fulfilment  of  its  demands  on  them,   so  as  to  reconcile 
with  its  honour  the  pardon  of  those  who  continue  to 
trample  its  authority  in  the  dust.     We  see  at  a    gj 
that  this  was  impossible.     He  could  in    no  degree  re- 
lieve the  elect  as  elect,  as  unbelieving   sinn  a 
the  pressure  of  condemnation.     He  conic  not    . 
fore,  (in  the  language  so  much  approved     1    charge  or 
assume  the  debts  of  the  unregenerate  elect.     I '      ould 
not    then    stand    the   absolute   Surety   or   Sponsor  of 
such. 

No,  you  say,  but  he  stood  th  te   Surety  and 

Sponsor  of  the  elect  viewed  as  belie^trs.  If  you  mean 
that  he  covenanted  with  the  Father  about  the  gift  of 
faith  to  them  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  "  unto 
death,"  I  agree.  But  when  you  speak  of  suretiship 
and  sponsorship,  you  refer  to  his  assumption  of  their 
debts  and  obligations,  and  plainly  have  your  eye  on 
his  atonement.  But  the  atonement  did  not  obtain  for 
them  the  gift  of  faith.  The  suretiship  and  sponsor- 
ship therefore  did  not  secure  to  them  the  character  of 
believers.  That  was  done  by  an  influence  lying 
wholly  without  these  offices.  The  virtue  of  these 
offices  must  be  spent,  and  the  reward  for  executing 
them  bestowed,  before  the  elect  would  be  believers. 
In  other  words,  the  atonement  must  be  finished,  aid 
the  reward  for  making  it  conferred,  before  they  could 
receive  the  gift  of  faith ;  for  that  gift  was  Christ's  re- 
ward for  making  atonement.  Or  to  resort  to  the  fa- 
vourite phraseology,  their  debts  must  be  assumed  z  nd 

*  Rom.  3.  22.  and  4. 11,  13.  and  9. 30.  and  10.  4,  6, 10.     Phil.  3,  9. 
Heb.  11.  7. 


168  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

discharged  by  their  Surety,  and  he  must  be  recom- 
pensed for  having  finished  the  work,  before  they  would 
believe.  Did  he  then  pay  the  debts  of  believers  or 
unbelievers  ?  They  must  be  freed  from  debt,  and  the 
reward  of  their  liberation  must  be  bestowed,  before 
they  will  believe.  Do  they  go  out  believers  or  unbe- 
lievers? Plainly  if  Christ  was  an  absolute  Surety  or 
Sponsor  for  so  many  elect  sinners  by  name,  he  sus- 
tained this  relation  to  them  not  as  believers  but  as  un- 
believers. 

This  lays  open  at  once  the  fallacy  of  that  dream 
about  an  absolute  suretiship,  and  sponsorship,  and  re- 
presentation for  the  elect,  which  has  been  bred  in  the 
imaginations  of  good  men.  These  terms,  especially 
the  first  two,  belong  to  the  legal  system,  and  plainly 
glance  at  a  money  transaction  and  a  legal  commuta- 
tion of  persons.  And  let  it  be  remembered  that  they 
are  purely  of  human  invention.  But  if  in  any  sense 
it  is  proper  to  say  that  Christ  was  a  Surety,  Sponsor, 
or  Representative,  he  was  so,  not  to  men  as  passively 
appointed  to  receive  sanctifying  impressions,  but  only 
to  moral  agents  and  believers  ;  for  to  none  but  agents 
do  those  relations  belong  which  such  an  office  was 
capable  of  affecting.  I  am  willing  to  consider  him  in 
the  light  of  a  Representative,  but  he  was  so  only  in 
the  public  transactions,  and  not  in  the  secret  covenant. 
In  a  conditional  sense  he  may  be  considered  the  Re- 
presentative of  a  whole  world  of  moral  agents:  but 
if  you  speak  of  a  higher  suretiship  or  representation, 
indissolubly  connected  with  saving  effects,  it  respect- 
ed only  believers.  Those  for  whom  such  a  suretiship 
is  undertaken,  must  from  its  commencement  be  enti- 
tled to  a  discharge,  exonerated  from  obligation  to  suf- 
fer, acquitted.  Every  analogy  testifies  that  believers 
only  are  represented  in  this  higher  sense.     Adam  re- 


CHAP.  VH.j  LANGUAGE,  16$ 

presented  a  posterity  whose  temper  was  like  his  own, 
and  would  not  have  been  their  representative  without 
that  essential  circumstance  :  and  if  any  analogy  exists 
between  the  two  headships.  Christ  must  represent,  in 
this  higher  sense,  only  a  seed  who  resemble  him  in 
character.  The  very  idea  of  Adam's  representation 
was,  that  it  involved  his  posterity  in  his  own  condem- 
nation as  fast  as  they  become  his  posterity  by  actual 
existence :  to  comport  with  this,  Chrises  higher  re- 
presentation must  involve  men  in  his  own  justification 
as  fast  as  they  become  thus  represented*  Are  the  Re- 
presentative and  the  represented  treated  as  one  ?  none 
are  treated  like  Christ  but  the  justified,  "  the  bride, 
the  Lamb's  wife."  Whom  should  the  Head  repre- 
sent but  the  body,  the  members  ?  But  in  the  higher 
sense  he  is  the  Head  of  believers  only.  No  others 
are  invested  with  his  righteousness  and  owrned  in  the 
presence  of  his  Father ;  no  others  are  accepted  through 
his  intercession.  They  are  "  his  body,  the  fulness  of 
him  that  filleth  all  in  all*." 


*  To  this  latter  idea  of  representation  the  view  is  confined  in  the.. 
Body  of  Christ,  written  by  the  Rev.  James  M'Chord*  of  Lexington, 
Kentucky,  a  man  of  no  ordinary  powers  of  mind.  He  overlooks  the 
representation  of  men  as  moral  agents,  or  he  would  be  in  agreement 
with  us  at  almost  every  point.  Mr.  M'C/s  system  is  as  follows.  The. 
covenant  of  grace  was  made  with  Christ  as  the  Head  of  the  body,  the 
Church  ;  which,  whatever  numbers  it  contains,  constitutes,  together 
with  the  Head,  in  all  periods  of  time,  one  moral  unit.  Christ  repre- 
sented, not  the  elect  as  such,  not  the  world  at  large,  but  the  Church, 
as  a  body,  and  every  individual  which  belonged  to  it  at  the  time  of  his 
death ;  and  every  one,  though  unknown  to  the  covenant  before,  be- 
comes represented  as  soon  as  he  believes.  As  the  atonement  was 
sufficient  for  all,  and  the  covenant  was  restricted  to  no  number,  Christ  is 
capable  of  becoming  a  Representative  of  one  as  well  as  another,  provided 
they  believe.  Thus  the  privilege  of  an  atonement  is  open  to  all  alike, 
though  no  expiation  is  actually  made  for  any  but  believers.  A  possible, 
salvation  is  thus  provided  for  all.  The  covenant  which  secured  tbe 
salvation  of  the  elect  was  quite   a  different  thing,  being  made.  $ot 

P 


170  FIGURATIVE  [PART  I. 

The  foregoing  remarks  give  a  different  view  to  the 
whole  transaction.  In  this  representation  you  find 
not  that  legal  oneness  between  Christ  and  the  elect, 
that  legal  imputation  of  a  precise  number  of  sins  to 
him,  that  legal  punishment  and  literal  satisfaction  of 
law  and  justice  for  a  given  number,  and  that  legal  ac- 
quittal of  all  for  whom  satisfaction  was  made,  which 
involve  the  consequence  that  all  for  whom  it  was  made 
must  in  justice  to  them  be  pardoned.  Nor  do  vou 
find  that  legal  identification  from  which  it  can  be  in- 
ferred that  all  for  whom  it  was  made  must  in  justice  to 
Christ  be  pardoned.  Whether  all  for  whom  as  moral 
agents  he  atoned,  (and  none  but  agents  sustained  those 
relations  which  an  atonement  could  affect.)  must  in 
justice  to  him  be  brought  to  repentance  and  pardon, 
depends  on  the  nature  of  that  secret  covenant  by  which 
his  claims  were  regulated.  That  which  could  give  to 
his  death  such  a  bearing  upon  public  law  and  the  legal 
relations  of  men  as  to  constitute  an  atonement,  let  it 
be  distinctly  remarked,  was  not  a  secret  compact  be- 
tween the  Sacred  Persons,  but  the  public  avowal  of  the 
design  of  his  death.  The  secret  covenant  related  sim- 
ply to  his  reward  for  making  atonement.     Whether 

between  God  and  the  Messiah,  but  between  the  First  and  Second 
Persons  of  the  Trinity,  with  a  view  to  the  latter's  becoming  the  Messiah. 
In  short  he  excludes  from  the  atonement  everything  which  discrimi- 
nates the  elect,  and  holds  out  a  provision  which  is  capable  of  becoming 
an  actual  atonement  for  every  man  if  he  will  but  accept  it.  Here  then 
is  a  conditional  atonement  for  all  us  moral  agents;  and  this  is  exactly 
what  those  eastern  brethren  mean  with  whom  Mr.  M'C.  is  considera- 
bly displeased.  The  key  which  he  wanted  to  unlock  every  ward  which 
he  failed  to  open,  is  to  be  found  in  the  existence  and  attributes  i  : 
agents.  When  he  has  ramiliarized  his  mind  to  this  subject,  ins  con- 
troversy with  those  who  maintain  a  general  atonement  will  cease. 
But  insulated  as  Mr.  M'C,  was,  and  embarra.sed  in  various  « 
he  seems  to  have  been,  it  is  not  so  great  a  wonder  that  he  raw  some 
things  obscurely,  as  that  he  discovered  so  much, 


CHAP.  VII.]  LANGUAGE.  171 

therefore  any  for  whom  he  atoned,  (that  is,  any  whose 
legal  relations  he  so  changed  that  they  could  be  par- 
doned if  they  would  believe,)  could  in  justice  to  him, 
(injustice  to  themselves  they  certainly  might,)  be  left 
unsanctified  and  perish,  depends  on  the  nature  of  the 
secret  covenant  which  regulated  his  claim  to  a  reward. 
If  it  was  the  mutual  understanding  of  the  Sacred  Per- 
sons in  that  covenant,  that  the  public  annunciation 
should  be  so  shaped  as  to  give  the  atonement  a  bear- 
ing on  a  whole  world  of  moral  agents,  in  a  way  honour- 
able and  gratifying  to  Christ,  while  only  a  part  should 
be  sanctified  and  given  him  for  a  seed ;  then  no  in- 
justice is  done  to  Christ  if  a  part  of  those  for  whom 
he  atoned  are  left  unsanctified  and  perish.  If  it  shall 
appear  that  besides  the  secret  covenant,  in  which  the 
elect  werev  distinguished  only  as  passive  receivers  of 
sanctifying  impressions,  there  was  a  sort  of  open  and 
visible  compact  between  the  Father  and  Son,  (the 
public  annunciation  before  referred  to,)  according  to 
which  the  atonement  was  publicly  offered  and  accept- 
ed for  a  whole  world  of  moral  agents,  to  have  this  pre- 
cise operation,  "  that  whosoever  believeth  should  not 
perish ;"  then  all  injustice  is  wiped  from  the  transac- 
tion, and  every  thing  is  made  out  for  which  we  plead, 

THE   WHOLE    DIFFERENCE    AT    ONE    VIEW. 

The  point  of  separation  between  the  parties,  so  far 
as  the  nature  of  the  atonement  is  concerned,  plainly 
lies  here.  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  expiation 
and  satisfaction  stand  together  as  cause  and  effect; 
but  our  brethren  make  both  of  these  commensurate 
with  the  higher  Xvrgov  or  ransom  by  which  the  higher 
*»T§u<fis  or  redemption  was  accomplished,  and  then 


172  FIGURATIVE    LANGUAGE.  [PART  %, 

Taise  a  question  about  particular  redemption.  Particu- 
lar redemption,  (meaning- by  redemption  the  effect  of 
Chat  ransom  which  included  both  expiation  and  merit.) 
they  can  prove  ;  and  if  this  was  all  they  attempted, 
the  dispute  would  be  at  an  end.  But  by  uniting  the 
two  distinct  influences  of  expiation  and  merit  in  what 
they  call  the  atonement,  they  make  the  atonement  ac- 
complish the  whole  redemption  from  sin  and  death, 
and  constantly  speak  of  the  higher  ransom  as  having 
no  other  influence  than  to  expiate  and  satisfy.  The 
inference  is,  that  no  expiation  or  satisfaction  was  made 
for  those  who  do  not  feel  all  the  influence  of  the  high- 
er ransom,  in  other  words,  are  not  redeemed  from  the 
power  of  sin.  And  when  they  have  put  into  satisfac- 
tion the  whole  influence  of  merit  with  all  its  claim  to 
reward,  satisfaction  itself  has  a  claim.  And  when  they 
find  satisfaction  with  a  claim,  forgetting  that  they  put 
into  that  satisfaction  a  claim  to  a  reward,  *they  know- 
not  how  to  make  out  the  claim  without  making  the 
satisfaction  a  literal  satisfaction  of  lazo  and  justice. 
And  to  get  at  this  there  must  be  a  literal  legal  oneness 
between  Christ  and  the  elect.  This  is  manifestly  the 
process  by  which  the  whole  scheme  has  come  irato  ex- 
istence, 


PART  II. 

EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT, 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CURSE  OF  ABANDONMENT  REMOVED  FROM  ALL. 

According  to  the  foregoing  pages,  the  only  effects 
which  the  atonement  had  on  Peter  were  these  two  :  it 
removed  the  curse  of  abandonment,  and  thus  took 
away  the  penal  bar  to  his  sanctification,  and  it  ren- 
dered his  pardon  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the 
law  on  the  supposition  of  his  believing.  Had  it  these 
two  effects  on  all  ?  If  so,  it  was  in  fact  a  general 
atonement,  whether  intentionally  or  otherwise.  The 
main  question  then  may  be  resolved  into  these  two  : 
did  the  atonement  remove  the  curse  of  abandonment 
from  all  ?  and  did  it  render  the  pardon  of  all  consist- 
ent with  the  honour  of  the  law  in  case  they  should 
hear  the  Gospel  and  believe  ?  The  former  question 
will  be  disposed  of  in  this  chapter,  the  latter  will  then 
claim  our  undivided  attention. 

After  such  a  death  in  our  world  to  support  the  pe= 
nalty  of  the  law  given  to  men,  no  favour  shown  to  the 
human  race  could  weaken  the  influence  of  the  penalty, 
unless  it  spread  a  shield  over  irreclaimable  wicked- 
ness. No  power  exerted  to  turn  men  from  wickedness 
could  weaken  it,  be  they  who  they  might,  So  iar  then 
P  2 


174  •  FIRST  PART  OP  THE  CURSE  [PART  II. 

as  the  influence  of  the  penalty  was  concerned,  it  had 
become  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  to  grant 
the  Spirit  to  all  men.  And  this  is  what  1  mean  by  re- 
moving the  curse  of  abandonment. 

If  it  shall  appear  that  the  atonement  rendered  the 
pardon  of  all  men  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the 
law,  on  condition,  not  that  they  should  rtceive  faith, 
but  that  they  as  agents  should  believe,  then  it  left  no 
legal  bar  to  their  full  discharge  from  every  part  of  the 
curse  but  their  own  evil  agency,  and  therefore  no  re- 
striction, imposed  by  the  curse>  on  the  sanctifying 
agency  of  God. 

In  the  public  explanation  accompanying  the  atone- 
ment, it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  any  notice  would 
be  taken  of  its  influence  on  the  grant  of  regenerating 
grace  ;  for  that  explanation,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter, 
referred  only  to  agents,  but  this  grace  is  bestowed  on 
passive  receivers.  All  that  could  be  expected,  in  re- 
lation to  the  Spirit,  from  an  explanation  thus  limited, 
was  a  general  notice  that  a  way  wag  opened  to  bestow 
this  blessing  on  all  who  as  agents  would  believe.  That 
notice  was  given.  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  him  should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life ;" 
implying  that  they  should  eternally  be  sanctified. 
"  He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath  said, 
out  cf  his  belly  shall  (low  rivers  of  living  water.  But 
this  spoke  he  of  the  Spirit  which  they  that  believe  on 
him  should  receive."  "  Repent  and  be  baptised 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost*."  It  will  appear  hereafter  that  nothing 
is  promised  on  the  condition  of  faith  which  it  would 
injure  the  law  to  grant,  allowing  the  fact  to  take  place 

*  John  3.  IS.  and  7.  38,  39.    Acts  2.  33. 


CflAP.  I.]  REMOVED    FROM    ALL.  175 

that  all  respected  in  the  promise  should  of  their  own 
accord  believe.  If  then  the  Spirit  was  promised  to 
Simon  Magus  on  the  condition  of  his  faith,  the  law 
would  not  have  been  injured  had  he  actually  believed 
and  received  the  Spirit  as  a  gracious  and  eternal  re- 
ward. And  if  the  Spirit  was  communicable  to  him  on 
the  condition  of  his  faith,  the  curse  of  abandonment 
was  removed  ;  for  that  was  involved  in  a  judicial  sen- 
tence which  declared  that  Simon  Magus  should  never 
on  any  conditions  receive  the  sanctifying  Spirit  to 
eternity. 

But  it  was  not  mere  atonement  which  produced  this 
whole  effect.  The  merit  of  Christ,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  requisite  to  complete  the  opening  for  the  mission 
of  the  Spirit;  for  it  was  necessary  to  the'highest  ho- 
nour of  the  law  that  all  positive  good  should  be  grant- 
ed as  the  reward  of  a  perfect  righteousness.  Atone- 
ment removed  the  penal  bar  which  sin  had  raised ; 
merit  gave  opportunity  for  the  blessing  to  come  as  the 
recompense  of  a  full  homage  to  the  law. 

But  when  we  introduce  the  merit  of  Christ,  it  must 
be  acknowledged  that  this  was  not  employed  to  make 
provision  for  the  regeneration .of  Simon  Magus.  That 
is,  the  covenant  of  redemption  did  not  provide  for  his 
regeneration  as  a  part  of  Christ's  reward.  In  this  re- 
spect complete  provision  was  not  made  for  his  regene- 
ration in  consistency  with  the  highest  honour  of  the 
law.  This  however  was  no  defect  of  the  atonement, 
(for  it  remained  after  sin  was  covered  and  the  penal 
bar  removed.)  but  lay  in  the  single  fact  that  the  rege- 
neration of  Simon  was  not  promised  to  Christ.  And 
this  was  a  matter  which  respected  Simon,  not  as  a  mo- 
ral agent,  but  as  a  mere  passive  receiver  of  divine  im- 
pressions. As  a  moral  agent  the  very  obedience  of 
Christ  made  provision  for  his  sanctification.    That  is. 


276  FIRST  TART  OF  THE  CURSE,  &C.       [pART  II. 

it  provided  for  his  continued  sanctification  if  he  would 
once  believe.  For  though  in  that  seeret  covenant 
which  respected  passive  receivers,  his  regeneration 
was  not  connected  with  Christ's  reward,  yet  the  pub- 
lic explanation  accompanying  the  death  of  the  Media- 
tor, which  related  to  moral  agents,  and  was  a  sort  of 
visible  compact  between  him  and  the  Father,  gave  him 
an  open  right  to  claim  as  his  reward  the  continued 
sanctification  of  the  whole  world  if  they  as  agents 
would  once  believe.  Thus  by  the  merit  as  well  as  the 
atonement  of  Christ  provision  wras  made  for  a  whole 
world  of  moral  agents  in  reference  to  their  sanctifica- 
tion, that  is,  a  provision  which  they  might  enjoy  by 
doing  their  duty. 

In  every  view  but  one  the  atonement  was  a  mere 
provision  for  moral  agents.  As  it  bore  on  regenera- 
tion, it  barely  removed  a  penal  bar  to  sanctifying  im- 
pressions on  passive  receivers  :  but  even  this  was  ac- 
complished by  an  operation  on  the  relations  of  moral 
agents  ;  for  it  was  the  removal  of  a  curse  which  moral 
agents  had  incurred.  In  every  other  point  of  view  the 
atonement  was  purely  a  provision  for  moral  agents. 
As  it  opened  the  way  for  the  Spirit  to  be  given  them 
as  the  gracious  reward  of  their  faithful  seeking,  it  was 
such.  As  it  bore  on  pardon  it  was  such  altogether. 
The  way  is  now  prepared  to  consider  it  in  the  latter 
light  alone.  And  here  the  question  is,  did  it  recon- 
cile with  the  honour  of  the  law  the  pardon  of  Simon 
Magus  in  case  he  of  his  own  accord  would  believe  ?  If 
it  did,  it  was  a  complete  provision  for  him  as  a  moral 
agent,  and  as  full  an  atonement  for  him  as  for  Peter, 
whether  intentionally  50  or  otherwise. 


CHAP.  II. J  GRAND  POINT  OF  DIVISION.  177 

CHAPTER  If. 

GRAND  POINT  OF  DIVISION   BETWEEN  THE  PARTIES. 

"When  the  Remonstrants,"  says  Dr.  Watts,  "as- 
sert that  Christ  died  for  all  mankind,  merely  to  pur- 
chase conditional  salvation  for  them  ;  and  when  those 
who  profess  to  be  the  strictest  Calvinists  assert  [that] 
Christ  died  only — to  procure  absolute  and  effectual 
— salvation  for  the  elect ;  it  is  not  because  the  whole 
Scripture — asserts  the  particular  sentiments  of  either 
of  these  sects  with  an  exclusion  of  the  other.  But  the 
reason  of  these  different  assertions  of  men  is  this,  that 
the  holy  writers  in  different  texts  pursuing  different 
subjects,  and  speaking  to  different  persons,  sometimes 
seem  to  favour  each  of  these  two  opinions  ;  and  men 
being  at  a  loss  to  reconcile  them  by  any  medium,  run 
into  different  extremes,  and  entirely  follow  one  of 
these  tracks  of  thought  and  neglect  the  other.  But 
surely  if  there  can  be  a  way  found  to  reconcile  these 
two  doctrines,  of  the  absolute  salvation  of  the  elect, — 
and — the  conditional  salvation  provided  for  all  man- 
kind ; — this  will  be  the  most  fair,  natural,  and  easy 
way  of  reconciling  these  different  texts  of  Scripture, 
without  any  strain  or  torture  put  upon  any  of  them*." 

This  "  medium"  of  reconciliation,  this  hidden  cause 
of  the  diversity  of  language  in  the  sacred  writers  while 
"  pursuing  different  subjects,"  the  same  distinguished 
writer  sought  and  found.  The  clue  which  he  disco- 
vered lay  among  the  relations  of  moral  agents,  where 
we  shall  seek  it  in  the  following  pages. 

As  that  class  of  Calvinists  who  advocate  a  general 
atonement  are  among  the  firmest  supporters  of  abso- 

*  Watts'  Works,  Vol.  VI.  v.  2S6,  2S/V 


178  w  GRAND  POINT  [PART  li. 

lute  personal  election,  and  as  those  who  sustain  the 
opposite  side  generally  admit  that  all  are  bound  to 
live  by  the  atonement,  I  have  often  asked  myself, 
where  can  this  difference  lie  ?  To  what  radical  princi- 
ple can  it  be  traced  ?  Where  is  the  angle  of  separa- 
tion ?  As  both  parties  are  agreed  in  their  cardinal  po- 
sitions, by  what  means  do  they  arrive  at  such  oppo- 
site conclusions  ?  The  following  is  thought  to  be  the 
solution  of  the  mystery. 

One  party  contemplate  men  as  passive  receivers  of 
sanctifying  impressions  ;  and  their  question  is,  how 
many  did  God  intend  by  regenerating  influence  to 
make  partakers  of  the  benefit  of  the  atonement  ?  The 
answer  is,  the  elect.  And  so  say  we.  The  other  par- 
ty contemplate  men  as  moral  agents  ;  and  their  ques- 
tion is,  how  many  did  God  intend  to  furnish  with  a 
means  of  pardon  which  they  should  be  under  obliga- 
tions to  improve  for  their  everlasting  good  ?  The  an- 
swer is,  all  who  hear  the  Gospel.  And  so  say  our 
brethren.  Thus  the  dispute  turns  out  to  be  chiefly 
about  words.  Whose  language  is  the  most  correct, 
depends  on  the  question  whether  the  atonement  in  its 
own  proper  influence  was  adapted  to  affect  men  as 
moral  agents  or  as  passive  subjects  of  divine  impres- 
sions. If  it  spent  all  its  force  on  agents,  then  in  de- 
ciding for  how  many  it  was  provided,  we  must  see  on 
how  many  it  left  those  traces  which  belong  to  agents. 
If  on  the  other  hand  it  exhausted  itself  on  passive  sub- 
jects of  sanctifying  impressions,  we  have  only  to  ask, 
how  many  in  consequence  are  sanctified  ? 

J  am  inclined  to  think  that  this  is  the  original  angle  of 
separation,  and  that  the  dispute  about  the  nature  of  the 
atonement  is  rather  consequential.  The  mistake  of  our 
brethren,  as  we  view  it,  has  arisen  from  not  keeping  these 
two  characters  of  man  distinct.    They  have  confounded 


chap,  ik]  or  division.  179 

the  two,  and  by  confounding  have  buried  up  the  agent, 
undrr  the  passive  receiver  ;  and  what  was  intended  for 
the  agent  they  would  not  allow  was  intended  for  the 
man  unless  he  was  to  be  sanctified.  The  two  charac- 
ters, I  shall  have  occasion  to  shov  hereafter,  are  about 
as  distinct  as  body  and  soul ;  and  on  their  marked  se- 
paration the  solution  of  almost  every  difficulty  in  me- 
taphysical theology  depends.  And  had  our  bret 
kept  the  distinction  plainly  before  them,  they  would 
have  seen  that  the  atonement  was  for  agents  and  agents 
alone ;  and  then  they  would  have  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  question  how  many  were  to  be  passively  re- 
generated. And  then  they  could  not  have  reasoned 
about  the  nature  of  the  atonement  as  they  have  done. 
The  mistake  lies  in  not  perceiving  that  an  atonement 
intended  merely  for  agents,  is  completely  for  them 
without  reference  to  the  question  whether  the  same 
creatures  are  to  be  regenerated. 

The  question  which  continually  lies  before  our  bre- 
thren is,  how  many  did  the  Sacred  Persons  intend  to 
save  by  an  influence  on  them  as  passive.  Hence  they 
tell  us,  "  When  a  question  arises  concerning  any  trans- 
action, for  whom  it  was  done,  it  is  decided  by  ascer- 
taining the  intention  of  the  principal  agent."  Christ 
"  may  be  said  to  have  died  for  all  whom  he  designed  to 
bring  to  salvation,  and  for  none  else."  "  It  will  be 
pretended  that  Christ  died  for  all,  but  suspended  the 
benefit  of  his  death  upon  a  condition.  Be  it  so.  Then 
when  Christ  died  he  knew  whether  that  condition 
would  ever  take  place ;  or  rather  he  knew  that  it 
never  would  in  those  to  whom  he  had  determined  not  to 
give  faith.  And  to  say  that  a  person  does  a  thing  to 
take  effect  on  a  certain  condition  which  he  is  sure  will 
never  occur,  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  he  does  a  thing 
without  any  view  to  that  effect."     Our  question  has 


180  GRAND  rOlNT  [PART  II. 

nothing  to  do  with  any  of  these  matters,  but  is  merely 
this;  whose  relations  to  the  divine  law  did  the  Sacred 
Persons  intend  so  to  change  that  they  could  be  par- 
doned if  they  would  believe  ? 

Our  question  always  is,  for  whom  did  Christ  atone  ? 
The  question  of  our  brethren  is,  for  whom  did  he  die  ? 
meaning,  for  whom  did  he  offer  the  double  influence  of 
expiation  and  merit,  which  met  in  his  death  and  con- 
stituted the  higher  ransom  ?  And  what  they  maintain 
is  not  so  much  a  limited  atonement  as  particular  re- 
demption. But  they  do  not  distinguish  between  the 
twro ;  and  in  the  midst  of  an  argument  to  disprove  a 
general  atonement,  you  will  find  them  urging  the  in- 
fluence of  Christ's  merit  on  the  gift  of  faith..  The 
Scriptures  "  require  indeed  faith  as  an  instrument  of 
receiving  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  ;  but  this  very 
faith  is  the  effect  of  Christ's  meritorious  death  and 
prevalent  intercession  ;  and  is  of  course  bestowed  on  all 
those  for  whom  he  shed  his  precious  blood."  "  The 
death  of  Christ,  considered  in  unison  with  his  obedi- 
ence, is  the  meritorious  cause  of  all  spiritual  blessings. 
It  is  therefore  the  cause  of  the  gift  of  faith."  It  cer- 
tainly is ;  but  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  extent 
of  the  atonement. 

But  notwithstanding  these  discrepancies,  when  our 
brethren  come  to  speak  of  the  real  effects  of  the  atone- 
ment on  moral  agents,  they  admit  all  that  we  plead 
for.  This  they  do  as  often  as  they  allow  that  the  non- 
elect  lose  the  benefit  by  their  own  fault ;  a  point  full}T 
settled  by  the  general  consent  of  the  Calvinistic  world. 
The  following  is  the  testimony  of  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
a  body  which  for  two  centuries  has  been  quoted  as 
the  oracle  on  the  other  side.  "  That  many  who  are 
called  by  the  Gospel  do  not  repent  or  believe  in  Christ, 
but  perish  in  unbelief,  does  not  arise  from  the  z6aM  a1; 


QHAP.  II.]  OF  DIVISION.  181 

the  sacrifice  of  Christ  offered  on  the  cross,  nor  from 
its  insufficiency,  but  from  their  own  fault*."  Now  if 
the  non-elect  have  an  atonement  so  within  their  reach 
that  they  are  bound  to  use  it  for  their  benefit,  and  pe- 
rish, not  for  want  of  an  atonement,  but  by  their  own 
criminal  rejection  of  it,  then  an  atonement  was  pro- 
vided for  them  as  much  as  it  could  be  for  moral 
agents.  The  difference  therefore  is  still  about  words. 
The  two  questions,  for  whom  did  Christ  atone  ?  and 
for  whom  did  he  die?  (meaning  by  the  latter,  whom 
did  he  intend  to  save  by  an  operation  on  them  as  pas- 
sive ?)  require  directly  opposite  answers  :  and  from 
the  different  answers  which  they  have  received,  men 
have  appeared  to  each  other  to  be  contending  for  op- 
posite systems,  when  in  fact  they  were  in  the  main 
only  supporting  different  truths.  The  former  ques- 
tion has  been  largely  discussed  by  the  divines  of  New- 
England  ;  the  latter  was  agitated  by  the  Synod  of 
Dort.  I  will  first  take  up  the  question  in  the  shapfc 
in  which  it  was  handled  by  the  Synod. 


■»♦» 


CHAPTER  III. 

VIEW   OF    THE    SUBJECT     AS    TAKEN    BY    THE    SYNOD    OF 
DORT. 

This  Synod  was  convened  at  Dort  in  Holland,  un- 
der the  auspices  of  prince  Maurice  the  stadtholder^ 
by  an  order  of  the  states-general  dated  Nov.  11,1617$ 
and  consisted  of  delegates  from  the  different  provinces 
of  Holland,  from  Great-Britain,  the  Reformed  Church- 
es of  France  and  the   French  Netherlands,  Switzer- 

*  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Doit.  Part  I.  p.  290, 

Q 


182  views  or  THE  [part  11, 

land,  Geneva,  the  Palatinate,  the  Wetteraw,  Hesse, 
Bremen,  and  Emden. 

For  near  twenty  years  the  United  Provinces  had 
been  agitated  by  the  new  doctrines  broached  by  James 
Arminius,  the  celebrated  founder  of  the  sect  which 
still  bears  his  name*.  After  his  death  the  ministers 
who  adhered  to  his  cause  formally  seceded,  and  by 
an  instrument  which  they  called  a  remonstrance,  and 
from  which  the  party  took  the  name  of  Remonstrants, 
put  themselves  under  the  protection  of  the  states  of  the 
province  of  Holland  and  West-Friesland.  This  oc- 
curred in  June  1610.  In  the  following  August  and 
September,  several  students  in  divinity  being  about  to 
be  examined  before  different  classes,  the  Remonstrants 
drew  up  five  articles,  (in  opposition  to  predestination, 
limited  atonement,  total  depravity,  special  grace,  and 
the  perseverance  of  the  saints,)  and  obtained  an  order 
from  the  states  to  the  classes  to  require  in  the  examina- 
tion no  other  declaration  on  these  subjects  than  a  sub- 
scription to  the  articles.  Thus  arose  into  form  and  no- 
tice the  celebrated  Five  Points. 

After  years  of  grievous  contention  this  national  Sy- 
nod was  convened,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  all  ques- 

*  This  extraordinary  man  was  born  in  Holland  in  1560,  and  was 
ordained  pastor  of  a  church  in  Amsterdam  in  1588.  In  1603  he  was 
appointed  to  the  divinity  chair  in  the  university  of  Leyden.  From  this 
time  his  opinions  began  to  excite  public  attention,  tbut  they  were  not 
openly  avowed  till  the  year  before  his  death,  which  occurred  Oct.  19, 
1609.  His  eulogium  was  written  in  verse  by  the  celebrated  Grotiu-. 
who,  together  with  Vossius  and  many  other  learned  men,  took  a  di.~ 
I  inguished  part  in  supporting  the  Arminian  cause.  The  principal  oppo  ■ 
ncnt  was  Francis  Gomarus,  from  whom  the  orthodox  party  were  some- 
times called  Gomari^ts.  After  the  fall  of  the  Arminian  sect,  Grtrtihs 
was  arrested  by  the  order  of  prince  Maurice  and  sentenced  to 
.onment  for  lile  ;  but  he  escaped  by  the  ingenuity  of  his  wife,  who  had 
him  conveyed  from  the  fortress  iu  a  chest  pretended  to  be  tilled  with 
bool.s. 


CHAP.   III.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  180 

tions  in  dispute  ;  with  a  particular  order  to  discuss  first 
of  all  the  Five  Points,  and  to  refer  all  their  decisions 
to  the  states-general  for  confirmation.  The  Synod 
was  opened  on  the  thirteenth  of  November  1618,  and 
continued  its  sessions  till  the  ninth  of  the  following 
May*.  They  proceeded  immediately  to  cite  thirteen  of 
the  Remonstrants  to  appear  and  defend  their  doctrines. 
The  cited  obeyed  the  summons  on  the  6th  of  Decem- 
ber, and  were  dismissed  on  the  21st  of  January.  On  the 
24th  of  April  the  Synod  deposed  the  thirteen  pastors 
with  some  others,  and  enjoined  it  on  the  provincial  sy- 
nods, and  the  different  classes  and  presbyteries,  to 
proceed  against  the  whole  sect  without  delay,  and  not 
to  suffer  one  of  them  to  remain  in  office  or  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church.  All  this  was  confirmed  by  the 
states-general  in  July  following,  by  an  order  forbidding 
any  doctrine  contrary  to  the  expositions  of  the  Synod 
to  be  taught  in  any  of  the  churches,  and  enjoining  it 
on  all  ecclesiastical  bodies,  governours  of  colleges,  pro- 
fessors, ministers,  magistrates,  and  civil  officers,  to  see 
the  law  carried  into  rigorous  execution.  The  even: 
was  the  imprisonment  and  banishment  of  the  Armi- 
man  ministers,  and  the  violent  prostration  of  the  whole 
party,  agreeably  to  the  intolerant  principles  common 
to  all  Europe  in  that  day. 

This  is  the  Synod,  which,  uniting  in  one  voice  the 
Caivinistic  world,  just  one  century  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Reformation,  has  been  appealed  to  ever 
since  as  the  grand  authority  next  to  the  Bible  for  de- 
ciding all  questions  in  Caivinistic  divinity. 

The  question  respecting  the  design  of  Christ's  death 
was  brought  before  the  Synod  in  the  following  shape. 
The  Arminians  maintained  that  the  mission  of  Christ 

*  The  president  was  John  Bogerman,  pastor  of  a  church  in  Leuwai- 
den,  in  West-Friesland,  the  residence  of  the  prince  of  Orange,. 


184  VIEWS  OF  THE  [PART  tU 

placed  all  men  in  all  respects  on  an  equal  footing,  and 
left  the  rest  to  be  done  by  the  self-determining  power  of 
the  will ;  that  his  death  reconciled  God  to  the  whole 
human  race,  and  by  restoring  their  lapsed  powers  and 
the  freedom  of  their  will,  placed  them  in  a  condition, 
with  the  aid  of  common  grace,  to  work  out  their  own 
salvation  without  any  supernatural  influence  ;  that 
there  was  no  decree  or  intention  of  God  to  apply  the 
atonement  to  one  more  than  another,  and  for  aught 
he  would  do  the  whole  rate  might  have  perished 
after  all.  In  short  the  main  question  turned  on  pre- 
destination and  the  dependance  of  the  human  will*. 

This  the  Synod  perceived,  and  shaped  their  answer 
accordingly.  They  say  in  the  outset :  "  The  Remon* 
strants  in  this  article  do  not  treat  of  a  new  subject. 
For  formerly  the  Sem4-Pelagians  of  Marseilles  and  Sy- 
racuse maintained  the  same  in  these  words  :  Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  died  for  the  universal  human  race,  and  no 
man  is  wholly  excepted  from  the  redemption  of  his  blood, 
though  he  goes  through  this  whole  life  with  a  mind  most 
alienated  from  him  :  because  the  sacrament  of  mercy  be- 
longs to  all  men  ;  by  which  very  many  are  not  renewed, 
for  this  reason,  because  they  are  foreknown  to  hold  that 
it  is  useless  to  be  renewed.  As  far  therefore  as  belongs 
to  God,  eternal  life  is  provided  for  all ;  but  as  far  as 
appertains  to  the  freedom  of  the  will,  it  is  obtained  by 
those  who  of  their  own  accord  believe  in  God,  and  receive 
the  aid  of  grace  through  the  merit  of  believing.  In 
which  article,  although  in  appearance  they  amplified 
the  grace  of  God  and  the  redemption  of  Christ,  they  in 
truth  diminished  both,  ascribing  to  God  indiscriminate 
grace,  to  Christ  the  merit  of  redemption,  to  free  will 
the  efficacy  of  both :  and  while  they  would  overturn 
the  doctrine   of  predestination,   which   the   apostolic 

•  Acts  of  Synod,  Part  I.  p.  129,  130,  246,  247.     Part  II.  p.  129, 


€HAP.  III.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  185 

Austin  defended,  they  in  truth  tore  up  the  foundation 
of  the  whole  Gospel,  attributing  the  cause  of  faith  and 
perseverance,  and  therefore  of  human  salvation,  to  God 
and  Christ  indiscriminately,  to  the  humour  and  will  of 
man  determinately. — 

In  like  manner  these,  while  in  this  article  about  the 
obtaining  of  reconciliation  with  God  for  all  men  through 
the  death  of  Christ,  they  in  appearance  amplify  the 
grace  of  Christ's  death,  do  in  truth  the  same  thing  that 
those  did ;  and  while  they  think  to  tear  up  from  its 
foundation  the  apostolic  predestination  of  God,  (which 
discriminates  those  who  are  to  be  saved  from  those 
who  are  not  to  be  saved,)  to  introduce  in  opposition  to  it 
their  own  eventual  predestination,  of  those  who  of  their 
own  accord  believe  and  persevere,  or  determine  them- 
selves to  faith  and  perseverance,  a  predestination  pos- 
terior to  faith  and  perseverance,  (which  in  truth  ought 
to  be  called  ;?os£destination  instead  of  predestination.) 
.hey  do,  by  making  the  human  will  the  governour  of 
resistible  grace,  and  subjecting  reconciliation  through 
the  death  of  Christ  to  the  will  of  men,  completely  de- 
prive faith  of  all  grace,  and  weaken  the  consolation 
to  be  derived  from  the  death  of  Christ*." 

The  Synod  then  proceed  to  consider  at  large  the 
purpose  of  the  Sacred  Persons  ;  and  while  they  admit 
that  Christ  died  and  willed  to  die  for  all  in  respect 
to  the  sufficiency  of  his  ransom,  they  deny  that  it  was 
his  purpose  or  the  purpose  of  the  Father  actually  to 
save  the  whole  racet. 

When  they  oppose  the  unqualified  assertion  of  the 
Remonstrants  that  Christ  died  for  all,  they  explain 
their  meaning,  and  plainly  tell  us  that  it  is  the  inten- 
tion as  to  the  final  result  that  they  deny.  "  To  die  for 
anyone,"   say  they,   "is   properly  to  free  him  from 

f  Part  I.  p.  246,  247 f  p,  248. 

Q  2 


*86  VIEWS  OP  THE  [PART  Ii. 

death  by  one's  own  death,  or  to  die  in  his  place  that 
he  may  live  ;  as  appears  from  2  Sam.  18,  33.  Would 
God  I  had  died  for  thee  !  that  is,  in  thy  place  that  thou 
mightest  have  lived*." 

They  object  also  to  the  assertion  of  the  Remon- 
strants, that  Christ  reconciled  God  to  the  whole  world, 
and  obtained  remission  of  sins  for  all  and  eacht.  This 
obtaining  by  request,  (for  such  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  impetratio  which  the  Remonstrants  had  used.) 
cannot,  say  the  delegates  from  South- Holland,  be  se- 
parated from  the  application  :  "  for  an  obtaining  by 
request,  (as  lawyers,  the  best  interpreters  of  the  mean- 
ing of  words,  confess,)  includes  and  presupposes  a  con- 
cession of  the  thing  solicited.  Thus  with  them  an  ob- 
tained rescript  is  when  the  prince  has  granted  and  the 
supplicant  has  gained.  And  in  our  common  language, 
when  we  say  an  office  or  benefit  has  been  obtained  by 
request  for  any  one,  we  mean  not  only  that  the  right 
to  that  benefit  has  been  obtained,  but  the  actual  pos- 
session and  concession  of  itf." 

"  This  whole  thing,"  say  the  delegates  from  West- 
Friesland,."  which  they  have  endeavoured  to  hide  and 
bring  in  under  the  fringe  of  this  article,  lurks  in  this, 
that  not  content  with  the  received  doctrine  of  the  suf- 
ficiency of  Christ's  death,  they  have  invented  such  an 
obtaining  of  remission  of  sins  for  all  and  each  as  is  se- 
parated from  all  participation  of  remission  ;  where  we 
must  particularly  note,  that  when  they  propose  to  treat 
of  the  death  and  satisfaction  of  Christ,  of  its  fruits  and 
efficacy,  and  the  blessings  obtained  by  it,  they  do  not 
explain  the  manner  of  the  satisfaction,  nor  make  any 
mention  of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  instance, 
of  faith,  perseverance,  and  the  restoration  of  the  divine 
image  within  us,  or  of  the  renovation  of  our  nature  ;  by 

*  Part  I.  p.  247. 1  p.  248,  249. %  Part  III.  p.  145. 


CHAP.  III.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  18? 

which  they  suggest,  what  elsewhere  they  plainly  bring 
out,  that  Christ  obtained  salvation  that  there  might  be 
a  possibility  of  the  remission  of  sins  and  of  the  recon- 
ciliation of  men  to  God,  but  that  all  participation  of 
that  good  is  suspended  on  their  performing,  of  their 
own  accord,  the  prescribed  conditions,  that  is,  on  man 
and  his  free  will*." 

"  Here  it  is  to  be  noted,"  say  the  delegates  from  the 
synod  of  Groningen  and  Omlands,  "  that  the  question  is 
not  about  the  sufficiency  of  Christ's  death  :  for  we  af- 
firm without  hesitation  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  pos- 
sesses so  great  power  and  value  that  it  is  abundantly- 
sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  as  well  actual 
as  original  *,  and  that  no  one  of  the  reprobate  perishes 
for  want  of  the  death  of  Christ,  or  through  its  insuffi- 
ciency :  but  the  question  is,  whether,  according  to  the 
intention  of  God  the  Father  and  Son,  remission  of  sins 
and  reconciliation  with  God  were  actually  obtained  for 
more  than  the  electt." 

From  these  extracts  it  appears  what  the  chief  points 
of  dispute  between  the  Synod  and  the  Remonstrants 
were.  The  question  was  by  no  means  the  same  that 
is  agitated  at  the  present  day,  but  turned  chiefly  on 
the  intention  of  the  divine  mind  as  to  the  application  of 
the  atonement,  and  the  strange  notions  brought  for- 
ward to  disprove  special  grace  •,  in  other  words,  on  pre- 
destination and  the  dependance  of  the  human  will. 
And  though  those  venerable  fathers,  from  the  kind  of  op- 
ponents they  had  to  deal  with,  were  more  cautious  than 
we  are  in  the  use  of  universal  terms,  and  on  the  na- 
ture of  the  atonement  sometimes  lost  themselves  in 
figurative  language,  chiefly  from  not  distinguishing  beJ 
tween  atonement  and  the  higher  ransom  :  yet  on  the 
whole  they  can  scarcely  be  said  to  be  contending  with 

*  Part  III.  p.  173. 4  p,  193, 


138  VIEWS  OF    THE  [PART  II. 

us  ;  for  I  shall  shjpw  in  another  place,  by  copious  ex- 
tracts from  their  reasonings,  that  they  fully  admitted 
all  the  great  principles  which  support  our  conclusion. 

And  now  in  return  I  will  acknowledge  and  vindicate 
all  that  they  defended  against  the  inroads  of  the  Armi- 
nians.     This  I  will  do  under  the  following  heads. 

(I.)  A  part  of  the  human  race  were  elected  in 
Christ,  and  chosen  to  salvation  by  his  death,  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world.  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  blessed  us 
with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ, 
according  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  with- 
out blame  before  him  in  love  ;  having  predestinated 
us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to 
himself  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his' will." 
"  Who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling, 
not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own 
purpose  and  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus 
before  the  world  began."  "  Elect,  according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience,  and  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  non-elect  are  those 
"  whose  names  are  not  written  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world  in  the  book  of  life  of  the  Lamb  slain*." 

(2.)  This  number  were  promised  and  given  to  Christ 
as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  a  unto  death."  Their 
salvation  was  promised  him.  "  Paul,  a  servant  of  God 
and  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  faith 
of  God's  elect, — in  hope  of  eternal  life,  which  God 
that  cannot  lie  promised  before  the  world  began." 
Promised  to  whom  ?  no  man  was  there  to  receive  the 
pledge  :  promised  undoubtedly  to  Christ.  They  were 
given  to  him.  "  All  that  the  Father  invcth  me  shall 
*Eph.l.3-^,    2  Tim.  1.9.     1  Pet.  1.2.     Rev.  13.8.  and  17.  8. 


CfiAP.  III.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  189 

come  to  me,  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out. — And  this  is  the  Father's  will  which 
hath  sent  me,  that  of  all  which  he  hath  given  me  I 
should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at  the 
last  day."  "  I  hav ^manifested  thy  name  unto  the 
men  which  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the  world :  thine 
they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  me. — I  pray  not  for 
the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me. — 
Keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  me. — Those  that  thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept*." 
They  were  given  to  him  as  a  reward  of  his  obedience 
"  unto  death."  This  has  been  proved  in  a  former  chap- 
ter, and  will  be  still  further  established  in  the  Appen- 
dix. They  were  given  him  to  be  through  sanctification 
the  co-partners  of  his  inheritance.  It  was  fore-ordain- 
ed in  the  decree  of  election  that  he  should  be  "  the 
First-born  among  many  brethren,"  and  share  with 
them  the  inheritance  of  the  universe.  "  Whom  he 
did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conform- 
ed to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  First- 
born among  many  brethren."  And  among  the  rea- 
sons for  conferring  on  him,  in  reward  of  his  obedience, 
the  dominion  of  the  universe,  a  leading  one  was,  that 
he  might  complete  the  salvation  of  his  elect*  ?  Thou 
hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh,  that  he  should 
give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him." 
<;  Him  hath  God  exalted — to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour, 
for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel  and  forgiveness  of 
sinst." 

(3.)  The  salvation  of  the  elect  was  that  part  of 
Christ's  personal  reward  which  had  a  principal  in- 
fluence in  inducing  him  to  die.     It  was  an  important 

*  John  6.  37,  39.  and  17.  6—12.     Tit.  1.  1,  2. 1  John  17.  %. 

Aets  5.  31.     Rom.  8.  29. 


1 30  VIEWS  OF  THE  [PART  II. 

part  of  "  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him,"  in  view  of 
which  he  "  endured  the  cross,  despising  the  shame*." 
This  prospect,  which  so  much  influenced  his  own 
mind  through  his  whole  course,  it  was  natural  for  him 
to  allude  to  while  seated  in  thpfcosom  of  his  family. 
With  his  eye  on  Calvary,  and  with  the  joy  of  millions 
rising  before  him,  he  unbosomed  to  his  disciples  this 
great  motive  which  urged  him  to  the  cross.  "  I  lay 
down  my  life  for  the  sheep. — And  other  sheep  I  have 
which  are  not  of  this  fold :  them  also  I  must  bring." 
Then  turning  to  the  Jews,  "  But  ye  believe  not  be- 
cause ye  are  not  of  my  sheept."  It  has  been  already 
remarked  that  by  sheep  is  primarily  meant,  not  the 
imregenerate  elect,  but  believers.  The  fold  is  that 
which  is  enclosed  by  the  pale  of  the  Church,  and  the 
flock  are  the  Church  considered  as  an  assembly  of 
believers  gathered  together  in  Christ.  And  here  the 
sheep  "  hear"  the  porter's  "  voice,"  and  "  know  his 
voice,"  and  "follow  him,"  "and  a  stranger  will  they 
not  follow."  The  elect  Gentiles  are  therefore  called 
sheep  plainly  by  way  of  anticipation.  But  still  as 
there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  election  of  the  sheep, 
I  cannot  but  think  that  Christ  intended  to  express, 
not  that  the  sins  of  the  elect  would  be  atoned  for  more 
than  others,  but  that  in  the  motive  which  prompted 
him  to  the  sacrifice,  he  had  a  special  reference  to  the 
salvation  of  the  elect  as  a  part  of  his  promised  re- 
ward. By  a  similar  anticipation  the  unregencrate 
elect  appear  to  be  called  the  children  of  God,  and  a 
similar  reference  to  them  seems  to  be  expressed,  in 
the  following  passage  :  "  This  spoke  he,  [Caiaphas,] 
not  of  himself,  [not  at  his  own  suggestion,]  but  being 
high-priest  that,  year,  [and  in  honour  of  his  office  be- 
ing visited  with  a  temporary  inspiration,]  he  prophc- 
•  Heb.  12.  2. 1  John  10.  3—29. 


CHAP.  III.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  191 

sied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  that  nation  ;  and  not  for 
that  nation  only,  but   that  also  he  should  gather  toge- 
ther in  one  the  children  of  God   that   were   scattered 
abroad*."     By  running  back  the  contrary  way,  be- 
lievers, under  the  name  of  the  Church,  appear  to  be 
spoken  of  with  reference  to  their  previous  elect  cha- 
racter in  the  following   passage :  "  Christ  loved  the 
Church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  wTater  by  the  word  ; 
that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church, 
not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but 
that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemisht."     Some 
suppose  that  the  sanctified  and  the  children  are  spoken 
of  under  the  character  of  elect  in  the  following  place  : 
"  Both  he  that  sanctifieth  and  they  who  are  sanctified 
are  all  of  one  :  for  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to 
call  them  brethren   [and  children.] — Forasmuch  then 
as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he 
also   himself  likewise   took    part  of  the   same,    that 
through   death  he  might — deliver  themj."      And   in 
the    following :     "  For  their  sakes,   [they   were   be- 
lievers  at  the   time,    but   it  is  supposed   to  refer  to 
them  as  elect,]   I  sanctify  myself,  [devote  myself  to 
die,]  that  they  also  might  be   sanctified  through  the 
truth§."       There    are   other  passages  which   plainly 
declare    that    Christ   by    the    merit   of   his    obedience 
"  unto  death"   obtained  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  as  his 
reward,  and  thus  became  our   "  sanctification  and  re- 
demption," and  saved  "  his  people  from  their  sins," 
and  accomplished  the  double    purpose  of  purging  our 
u  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God." 
"  Who  gave  himself  for  our  sins  that  he  might  deliver 
us  from  this  present  evil  world."     &i  Who  gave  him-- 

*  John  11    51,  52. 1  Eph.  5.  25—27.-* $  Heb.  2.  11— Jo. 

—r-$  John  17.  19. 


?92  VIEWS  OF  THE  [PART  |I. 

self  for  us  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity, 
and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people  zealous  of 
good  works."  "  Ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corrupt- 
ible things  as  silver  and  gold  from  your  vain  conversa- 
tion,— but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ ; — who 
verily  was  foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  but  was  manifest  in  these  last  times  for  you  who 
by  him  do  believe  in  God."  "  For  it  pleased  the  Fa- 
ther that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell,  and,  (having 
made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,)  by  him  to 
reconcile  all  things  unto  himself. — And  you  that  were 
sometu  le  alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wick- 
ed works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled  in  the  body  of 
his  flesh  through  death,  to  present  you  holy,  and  un- 
blamable, and  unreprovable  in  his  sight*." 

Indeed  nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  the  merit 
of  Christ  in  actively  giving  himself  to  die,  obtained  the 
sanctification  of  the  elect  as  his  reward,  and  that  the 
prospect  of  this  reward,  so  gratifying  to  his  benevo- 
lence from  the  direct  love  which  he  bore  them,  consti- 
tuted one  of  the  leading  motives  which  urged  him  to 
the  cross ;  that  he  died  to  secure  this  interest,  so  pe- 
culiarly his  own  as  one  of  the  contracting  Parties, 
much  in  the  same  sense  as  a  man  performs  a  prescri- 
bed task  for  a  stipulated  recompense.  But  this  has 
nothing  to  "do  with  the  extent  of  the  atonement,  nor 
with  any  question  relative  to  its  equal  bearing  on  mo- 
ral agents. 

This  distinction  between  expiation  and  the  claim  of 
merit  to  a  reward,  appears  not  to  have  been  made  by 
either  party  in  the  days  of  Dort.  The  Remonstrants 
in  particular  were  totally  blind  to  all  that  influence  of 
Christ  which  went  in  to  constitute  the  higher  ransom. 

♦  Mat.  1.21.  Luke  1.71— 75.  1  Cor.  1.  30.  Gal.  1/4.  Co'. ?.  19— 22. 
Tit.  2. 14.  Heb.  9.  14.   1  Pet.  1.  18—21, 


CHAP.  IV.]  SYNOD  OF  BORT.  193 

So  far  from  saying  with  them,  that  his  only  influence 
and  end  was  to  render  God  able  and  willing  to  esta- 
blish with  men  a  covenant  of  grace*,  I  say  and  insist, 
that  so  far  as  services  could  earn  a  stipulated  reward, 
he  actually  "  purchased"  the  salvation  of  every  indi- 
vidual of  his  elect,  and  had  a  right  to  claim  it  at  the 
hands  of  justice.  They  who  overlook  or  fail  to  dwell 
largely  on  this  glorious  truth,  will  be  in  danger  of 
crowding  Christ  too  much  out  of  their  religion.  To 
-turn  the  eye  of  the  mind  full  upon  it,  to  admit  the  whole 
view,  and  to  dwell  upon  it  with  devout  and  grateful 
transport,  will,  as  every  one  can  testify  who  has  tried 
the  experiment,  open  more  fully  and  affectingly  to 
view,  that  which  all  must  see  is  the  great  subject  mat- 
ter  of  the  Bible,  Christ,  the  power  of  God3  and  the 
wisdom  of  God,  to  the  salvation  of  men. 

-    ■+♦  +    « 
CHAPTER  IVo 

ATONEMENT  FOR  MORAL  AGENTS  ONLY. 

None  but  moral  agents  bear  any  relation  to  law, 
obligation,  guilt,  pardon,  rewards,  or  punishments  ; 
and  none  else  can  bear  any  relation  to  an  atonement 
which  was  intended  to  support  law,  to  expiate  guilt, 
and  to  lay  a  foundation  for  pardon.  The  passive  had 
not  sinned  ;  the  passive  needed  no  pardon.  The  only 
way  in  which  passive  receivers  of  sanctifying  impres- 
sions could  be  affected  by  an  atonement,  was  indirect- 
ly, by  its  removing  the  curse  of  abandonment  which 
sinning  agents  had  incurred.  But  even  this  was  ac- 
complished by  a  mere  operation  on   the  relations  of 

v    *  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  Part  II.  p*  139> 

R 


131  ATONEMENT  FOR  [PART  II, 

agents.  The  whole  force  of  the  atonement  was  spent 
on  those  relations. 

This  is  what  we  mean  when  we  say  that  the  atone- 
ment was  a  measure  of  moral  government,  A  moral 
government  is  onlv  the  treatment  which  God  renders 
to  moral  agents.  As  he  stands  related  to  creatures  in 
this  character,  he  is  the  Moral  Governour,  Now  the 
atonement  was  plainly  an  expedient  of  the  Moral  Go- 
vernour  to  support  the  moral  law,  (the  constitution  of 
amoral  government,)  and  thus  to  open  a  way  for  the 
pardon  of  sinning  agents.  The  satisfaction  was  de- 
manded by  the  Protector  of  the  law,  and  was  rendered 
to  him  who  holds  the  rights  of  justice,  (as  all  acknow- 
ledge who  talk  of  satisfying  justice,)  and  was  accepted 
by  him  who  otherwise  was  determined  to  punish  sin. 
In  every  point  of  view  it  was  a  measure  adopted  by 
God  in  the  character  in  which  he  stands  related  to 
moral  agents. 

Thus  the  atonement  spent  its  force  on  the  relations 
of  agents,  and  except  by  way  of  consequence,  had  no 
effect  on  men  in  any  other  character. 

But  it  was  for  agents  in  another  respect ;  it  was  a 
provision  for  them.  By  a  provision  for  moral  agents 
is  always  meant  a  means  of  instruction,  holiness,  use- 
fulness, or  happiness,  which  they  may  improve,  and 
are  under  obligations  to  improve,  and  on  the  improve- 
ment of  which  as  a  sine  qua  non  the  benefit  depends. 
Here  I  must  introduce  a  principle  which  1  shall  have 
occasion  to  display  more  at  large  hereafter.  A  moral 
agent  must  be  contemplated  as  a  whole,  as  possessing 
that  entire  assemblage  of  attributes  which  constitute 
him  such,  and  not  as  one  maimed  of  half  his  qualities. 
His  essential  properties  cannot  be  divided.  Now  one 
of  the  tilings  w  ikh  essentially  belong  to  him  is,  that  he 
mustac/,  and  on  his  action  his  happiness  depends  One 
cannot  be  a  moral  agent  without  falling  under  this  law. 


CHAP.  IV.]        MORAL  AGENTS  ONLY.  195 

You  cannot  therefore  contemplate  a  man  as  needing  an 
atonement,  without  contemplating  him  as  one,  who,  if 
he  has  opportunity,  is  to  act  towards  the  atonement, 
and  is  to  enjoy  or  lose  the  benefit  according  as  he  re- 
ceives or  rejects  it.  If  you  keep  up  the  idea  of  a  mo- 
ral agent,  you  cannot  separate  these  things.  Any  thing 
therefore  which  is  done  for  a  moral  agent,  is  done  for 
his  use  after  the  manner  in  which  things  are  for  the  use 
of  free  moral  agents,  or  creatures  governed  by  motives 
and  choice,  and  bound  to  act.  That  is,  it  is  done  that 
he  may  use  it  if  he  pleases,  and  that  he  may  be  under 
obligation  to  use  it.  Unless  the  effect  is  thus  suspend- 
ed on  his  agency,  the  thing  is  not  prepared  for  him  as 
an  agent.  No  matter  what  other  provision  which  re- 
spects the  same  creature  as  passive,  has  secured  the 
action  of  the  agent;  yet  the  provision  for  the  agent 
necessarily  suspends  a  good  on  his  own  conduct.  Now 
as  an  agent  must  not  be  divided,  whatever  is  done  for 
him  in  a  way  to  affect  his  relations,  makes  a  provision 
for  him  as  an  agent,  that  is,  a  provision  for  him  to  im- 
prove. And  all  that  is  gained  by  changing  his  rela= 
tions,  (so  far  as  the  pure  agent  is  contemplated,)  is  to 
bring  a  good  so  within  his  reach  that  he  may  enjoy  it. 
if  he  will  accept  it,  and  must  accept  it  to  enjoy  it,  If 
cannot  be  for  an  agent  in  a  higher  sense.  In  a  higher 
sense  it  may  be  for  the  man,  for  under  that  name  both 
the  active  and  passive  characters  are  included.  The 
atonement  could  not  be  a  provision  for  a  guilty  agent, 
without  having  changed  his  relations  as  a  transgressor ; 
it  could  not  change  his  relations  as  a  transgressor, 
without  being,  (besides  removing  the  penal  bar  to  re- 
generation,) a  provision  for  a  moral  agent  to  improve  ; 
provided  men  are  ever  in  a  holy  manner  to  seek  sanc- 
tification  of  God  and  to  receive  it  as  a  gracious  re- 
ward, and  provided  the  consistency  of  their  pardon 
always  depends  on  their  turning  from  sin.    N 


196  THE  TWO  CHARACTERS        [PART  II. 

Thus  the  atonement  was  for  moral  agents  in  two  in- 
separable respects  :  it  affected  their  relations,  and  was 
a  provision  for  them  to  improve.  And  it  was  for  men 
in  no  other  character,  except  by  way  of  consequence 


+++ 


CHAPTER  V, 

THE  TWO  CHARACTERS  OF  MAN  DISTINCT  AND  INDEPEN- 
DENT OF  EACH  OTHER. 

The  moment  we  have  found  that  the  atonement  was 
for  none  but  moral  agents,  we  refuse  to  take  any  fur- 
ther notice  of  mere  passive  receivers  of  sanctifying 
impressions  ;  that  is,  we  refuse  to  take  into  account, 
in  settling  for  whom  as  agents  atonement  was  made., 
whether  the  same  persons  as  passive  were  predestin- 
ed to  be  regenerated  :  and  the  reason  is,  that  these 
two  characters  are  altogether  distinct  and  independent 
of  each  other,  and  what  is  true  of  the  one  is  none  the 
less  true  for  any  thing  which  concerns  the  other.  This 
is  the  corner  stone  of  the  whole  system,  and  requires 
to  be  laid  with  firmness  and  care. 

The  foundation  of  the  whole  divine  administration 
towards  the  human  race,  lies  in  this,  that  men  sustain 
two  relations  to  God.  As  creatures  they  are  necessa- 
rily dependant  on  him  for  holiness,  as  they  are  for  ex- 
istence, and  as  such  they  passively  receive  his  sancti- 
fying impressions  ;  and  they  are  moral  agents.  Now 
the  great  truth  to  be  proved  is,  that  these  two  charac- 
ters of  men,  (passive  receivers  and  moral  agents,)  arc 
altogether  distinct  and  independent  of  each  other.  And 
the  proof  is  found  in  the  single  fact,  that  their  moral 
agency  is  in  no  degree  impaired  or  affected  by  their 


CHAP.  V.]  OF  MAN  DISTINCT.  197 

dependance  and  passiveness,  nor  their  passiveness 
and  dependance  by  their  moral  agency.  That  is  to 
say,  they  are  none  the  less  dependant,  (as  Arminians 
would  make  us  believe,)  for  being  moral  agents  ;  and 
on  the  other  hand,  (and  this  is  the  main  point  to  be 
proved,)  they  are  none  the  less  moral  agents,  (as  An- 
linomians  seem  to  suppose,)  that  is,  are  none  the  less 
susceptible  of  personal  and  complete  obligations,  for 
being  dependant.  For  instance,  they  are  none  the 
less  bound  to  believe  because  faith  is  "  the  gift  of  God," 
nor  to  love,  because  love  is  "  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit.'5 
Their  obligations  rest  on  their  capacity  to  exercise,  not 
on  their  power  to  originate;  on  their  being  rational, 
not  on  their  being  independent.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
action  of  the  Spirit  does  not  abate  their  freedom.  The 
soul  of  man  is  that  wonderful  substance  which  is  none 
ihe  less  active  for  being  acted  upon,  none  the  less  free 
for  being  controlled.  It  is  a  wheel  within  a  wheel, 
which  has  complete  motion  in  itself  while  moved  by 
the  machinery  without.  While  made  "willing,"  it  is 
itself  voluntary  and  of  course  free.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  absence  of  the  Spirit  does  not  impair  the  capacity 
on  which  obligation  is  founded.  The  completeness  of 
moral  agency  has  no  dependance  on  supernatural  im- 
pressions, and  on  nothing  but  a  rational  existence 
combined  with  knowledge.  The  bad  equally  with  the 
good  are  complete  moral  agents,  the  one  being  as  de- 
serving of  blame  as  the  other  are  of  .praise  :  otherwise, 
(which  for  ever  settles  the  question,)  the  unsanctified 
are  not  to  blame  and  cannot  be  punished.  To  deny 
that  men  are  under  obligations  to  be  good  without  a 
divine  influence,  wouid  plunge  you  into  this  trilemma  : 
you  must  resort  to  the  old  Arminian  dogma  of  the  self- 
determining  power,  or  you  must  prove  that  God  an- 
swers unholy  prayers,  or  you  must  boldly  affirm  that 
R  2 


138  THE  TWO  CHARACTERS        [PART  II. 

totally  depraved  sinners  are  under  no  obligation  to  be 
holy.  For  how  can  they  be  under  obligation  to  be 
holy  through  a  divine  influence,  unless  they  can  obtain 
that  influence  by  an  unholy  prayer,  or  can  originate  a 
better  spirit  of  supplication  by  the  self-determining 
power  ?  What,  then,  are  men  to  be  sent  forth  in  their 
own  strength  ?  No,  but  they  are  bound  to  feel  perfect- 
ly right  at  once,  and  with  that  temper  to  cast  them- 
selves on  God  for  security  against  a  future  abuse  of 
their  agency,  a  future  violation  of  their  obligations. 
They  are  bound  to  feel  perfectly  right  at  once,  and 
with  that  temper  to  acknowledge  their  absolute  de- 
pendance  :  for  on  the  one  hand  that  would  only  be  a 
confession  of  the  truth,  and  on  the  other,  we  know 
from  facts  which  fill  the  universe  that  their  dependance 
is  no  abatement  of  their  obligations. 

This  is  the  very  point  from  which  have  proceeded 
one  half  of  the  disputes  of  the  Christian  Church.  They 
have  aJl  arisen  from  the  difficulty  of  familiarizing  to 
the  mind  the  consistency  between  dependance  and  ob- 
ligation, passiveness  and  freedom.  Illumine  this  inch- 
square,  and  the  whole  farrago  of  metaphysical  litiga- 
tion would  vanish.  Pelagians,  Semi-Pelagians,  Armi- 
nians,  Semi-Arminians,  and  Semi-Calvinists,  would  no 
longer  tremble  at  the  idea  of  absolute  dependance  as 
destructive  of  freedom,  nor  would  fatalists  infer  from 
that  dependance  that  men  are  machines. 

That  these  two  characters  are  each  perfect  in  itself 
and  unaffected  by  the  other,  is  no  less  evident  than  that 
creatures  can  deserve  praise  and  blame.  As  crea- 
tures they  must  be  dependant  on  the  Spirit ;  and  to 
be  susceptible  of  praise  and  blame,  is  the  very  defini- 
tion of  a  moral  agent. 

The  character  of  agents  as  distinct  from  recipients 
is  sufficiently  entire  ia  itself,  and  at  the  same  time  suf- 


6HAP.   V.]  OF  MAN  DI3TLYCT.  199 

ficiently  real  and  important,  to  be  the  basis  of  the 
whole  fabric  of  a  moral  government.  The  whole 
structure  is  obviously  founded  in  this  truth,  that  men- 
are  complete  moral  agents  without  supernatural  influ- 
ence, and  none  the  less  for  their  dependance.  God 
does  not  command  or  invite  them  to  come  on  condition 
that  they  are  draivn,  but  lays  upon  them  the  obligation 
without  reference  to  the  action  of  the  Spirit.  He  does- 
not  threaten  or  punish  them  because  they  fail  to  re- 
ceive his  influence,  but  because  they  do  not  act.  He 
makes  experiments  upon  them,  he  presents  instructions 
and  motives,  he  charges  them  with  privileges,  just  as 
though  they  were  independent. 

On  this  principle  he  proceeds  in  his  commands.  He 
requires  all  rational  creatures  to  be  holy,  sanctified  or 
unsanctified.  He  lays  this  command  on  angels  :  foF 
what  is  their  holiness  but  conformity  to  his  will  ?  He 
lays  this  command  on  good  men  ;  and  without  refer- 
ence to  any  spiritual  assistance,  says,  "  Remember 
from  whenGe  thou  art  fallen  and  repent."  He  lays 
this  command  on  the  worst  of  hypocrites,  and  without 
the  least  abatement  for  their  dependance,  says,  "  Hear 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  ye  rulers  of  Sodom  : — wash  ye? 
make  you  clean  : — cease  to  do  evil,  learn  to  do  well.'5 
He  lays  this  command  on  a  profligate  world,  on  mil- 
lions who  will  never  be  sanctified  ;  for  he  "  command- 
eth  all  men  every  where  to  repent."  He  lays  this 
command  on  devils  ;  or  devils  do  not  at  present  sin  5 
;'  for  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,"  and  "  where 
no  law  is  there  is  no  transgression*."  Indeed  if  in  any 
acts  of  authority  God  was  limited  by  his  dominion 
over  the  mind,  he  could  never  command  further  than> 

*  Rom.  4.  15,     1  John  3.  4,- 


200  THE  TWO  CHARACTERS        [PART  II. 

he  makes  "  willing,"   and  of  course  could  never  have 
an  opportunity  to  punish. 

On  this  principle  he  proceeds  in  the  dispensation  of 
rewards  and  punishments.  Without  reference  to  any- 
divine  influence  exerted  or  withheld,  he  will  say  at 
last,  "  Come  ye  blessed  ; — for  I  was  a  hungered  and 
ye  gave  me  meat. — Depart  ye  cursed  ; — for  I  was  a 
hungered  and  ye  gave  me  no  meat."  "  Because  I — 
called  and  ye  refused, — I  also  will  laugh  at  your  ca- 
lamity." 

On  this  principle  he  proceeds  in  all  his  invitations, 
promises,  threatenings,  and  expostulations.  "  He  that 
believeth — shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  "  If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient, 
ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land;  but  if  ye  refuse  and 
rebel,  ye  shall  be  devoured."  "  Look  unto  me  and 
be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth."  "  O  that  they 
were  wise,  that  they  understood  this,  that  they  would 
consider  their  latter  end !"  "  O  that  my  people  had 
hearkened  unto  me,  and  Israel  had  walked  in  my  ways  ! 
I  should  soon  have  subdued  their  enemies,  and  turned 
my  hand  against  their  adversaries."  "  Hear,  O  hea- 
vens, and  give  ear,  O  earth  ! — I  have  nourished  and 
brought  up  children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against 
me!" 

On  this  principle  he  proceeds  in  all  his  experiments 
upon  the  human  character.  "  Then  said  the  lord  of 
the  vineyard,  what  shall  I  do  ?  I  will  send  my  beloved 
son  ;  it  may  be  that  they  will  reverence  him."  "  Be- 
hold these  three  years  I  come  seeking  fruit  on  this 
figtree  and  find  none  :  cut  it  down,  why  cumbereth  it 
the  ground?  And  he  answering  said  unto  him,  lord, 
let  it  alone  this  year  also,  till  I  shall  dig  about  it  and 
dung  it;  and  if  it  bear  fruit,  well;  and  if  not,  then 
after  that  thou  shalt  cut  it  down."     Not  a  hint  of  any 


CHAP.  V.]  OF  MAN  DISTINCT,  201 

influence  from  without  but  simple  cultivation  ;  the  is- 
sue was  suspended  on  the  intrinsic  energy  of  the  tree. 
These  representations  have  been  considered  as  made 
after  the  manner  of  men,  but  in  truth  they  are  the  na* 
tural  language  of  one  agent  making  experiments  upon 
ether  distinct  and  complete  agents.  Specimens  of 
the  same  sort  may  be  seen  in  the  parables  of  the  ta- 
lents and  the  pounds. 

On  this  principle  he  proceeds  in  estimating  the  op- 
portunities and  privileges  of  men,  and  in  assigning  the 
cause  of  their  destruction.  "  My  well-beloved  hath  a 
vineyard  in  a  very  fruitful  hill.  And  he  fenced  it,  and 
gathered  out  the  stones  thereof,  and  planted  it  with  the 
choicest  vine,  and  built  a  tower  in  the  midst  of  it,  and 
also  made  a  wine-press  therein.  And  he  looked  that  it 
should  bring  forth  grapes,  and  it  brought  forth  wild 
grapes. — What  could  have  been  done  more  to  my  vine- 
yard that  I  have  not  done  in  it  ?"  "  There  was  a  cer- 
tain householder  which  planted  a  i&neyard,  and  hedg- 
ed it  round  about,  and  digged  a  wine-press  in  it,  and 
built  a  tower,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went 
into  a  far  country.  And  when  the  time  of  the  fruit 
drew  near,  he  sent  his  servants  to  the  husbandmen  that 
they  might  receive  the  fruits  of  it. — Last  of  all  he  sent 
unto  them  his  son,  saying,  they  will  reverence  my 
son."  "  Wherefore  is  there  a  price  in  the  hand  of  a 
fool  to  get  wisdom,  seeing  he  hath  no  heart  to  it  ?" 
;'  This  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the 
world  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light  be- 
cause their  deeds  were  evil.  For  every  one  that  doth 
evil  hateth  the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light  lest 
his  deeds  should  be  reproved."  "  Ye  will  not  come 
to  me  that  ye  might  have  life."  They  "  that  were 
bidden  to  the  wedding"  "  would  not  come."  "  His 
citizens  hated  him  and  sent  a  message  after  him,'  sayingr 


202  THE  TWO  CHARACTERS  [PART  II. 

we  will  not  have  this  man  to  reign  over  us. — Those 
my  enemies  which  would  not  that  I  should  reign  over 
them,  bring  hither  and  slay  them  before  me." 

Thus  Gabriel,  and  Paul,  and  Christians  on  earth, 
are  complete  moral  agents,  and  are  bound  to  act,  irre- 
spectively of  the  spiritual  influence  by  which  they  are 
moved ;  and  wicked  men  and  devils  are  complete  mo- 
ral agents,  and  are  bonnd  to  be  holy,  without  the  Spi- 
rit, and  none  the  less  for  their  dependance.  Neither 
the  dependance  of  men  therefore,  nor  the  gift  or  with- 
holding of  the  Spirit,  needs  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
any  declaration  concerning  them  as  moral  agents,  or 
concerning  the  outward  privileges  which  belong  to 
them  as  such.  Moral  agents,  so  to  speak,  are  com- 
plete entities  in  themselves,  without  respect  to  the 
passive  character  belonging  to  the  same  creatures. 

These  two  characters  of  men  are  about  as  distinct 
as  body  and  soul.  Like  body  and  soul  they  are  uni- 
ted together  in  ths^same  person  ;  and  this  gives  them 
a  necessary  relation  to  each  other,  (resembling  that 
between  body  and  soul,)  in  the  three  following  re- 
spects. 

(1.)  The  soul  is  stimulated  to  action  by  what  is 
needed  by  the  body,  and  by  what  is  done  for  the  body  ; 
and  agents  are  excited  to  holy  action  by  motives 
drawn  from  the  dependance  of  creatures,  and  from  the 
decrees  and  operations  of  God  respecting  them  as 
passive.  God  himself  draws  motives  from  election 
and  regeneration  to  move  them  to  submission,  adora- 
tion, gratitude,  and  praise. 

(2.)  The  soul  is  bound  to  act  in  view  of  the  wonts 
of  the  body,  and  in  view  of  what  is  done  for  the  body  ; 
to  ask  God  for  blessings  on  the  body,  and  to  thank 
him  for  thoso  blessing  when  conferred:  and  men  are 
bound  to  act  in  view  of  their  dependance,  and  towards 


CHAP.  V.]  OF  MAN  DISTINCT.  203 

God  as  related  to  passive  subjects  of  decrees  and  im- 
pressions. They  are  bound  to  acknowledge  their  de- 
pendance,  to  pray  for  the  Spirit  on  themselves  and 
others,  to  be  thankful  for  influences  already  re- 
ceived, to  believe  and  acquiesce  in  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion, to  thank  God  for  their  own  election  as  far  as  it  is 
known,  and  to  submit  the  fate  of  the  wicked  to  his 
sovereign  disposal.  God  himself  commands  these 
things. 

(3.)  The  soul  is  rewarded  and  punished  by  what  is 
done  to  the  body  ;  and  the  dependance  of  men  consti- 
tutes a  sort  of  capacity  for  rewards  and  punishments, 
God  promises  them  his  influence  as  a  gracious  recom- 
pense, and  bestows  it  in  answer  to  prayer,  in  fulfil- 
ment of  a  covenant,  or  as  a  general  token  of  favour ; 
in  all  which  you  may  trace  the  idea  of  reward.  The 
whole  process  of  sanctification  after  the  first  act  of 
faith,  seems  to  be  of  this  nature  ;  for  however  sove- 
reign it  may  be  in  point  of  time,  manner,  and  degree, 
it  was  in  general  promised  to  the  first  act  of  faith,  and 
is  certainly  a  token  of  favour.  On  the  other  hand, 
God  withholds  from  men  his  influence,  and  abandons 
them  to  judicial  blindness  and  tormenting  passions,  by 
way  of  punishment. 

Regeneration  can  never  be  the  reward  of  the  person 
regenerated,  for  before  the  change  he  had  nothing  wor- 
thy of  recompense.  But  the  regeneration  of  one  per- 
son may  be  the  reward  of  another.  It  may  be  a  re- 
compense to  Christ,  a  token  of  favour  to  a  parent  or 
minister,  a  fulfilment  of  a  covenant  with  the  Church, 
or  an  answer  to  prayer.  On  the  other  hand,  regene- 
rating  influence  may  be  withheld  from  one  as  the  pu- 
nishment of  another.  So,  to  keep  up  the- comparison 
already  begun,  the  soul  of  one  may  be  rewarded  or 
punished  by  what  is  done  to  the  body  of  another. 


'204  THE  TWO   CHARACTERS  [PART  II. 

In  these  three  respects  the  two  characters  stand  re- 
lated to  each  other.  These  then  may  be  considered  as 
exceptions  ;  and  to  save  repetition  I  shall  hereafter  re- 
fer to  them  as  such.  But  with  these  three  exceptions, 
the  two  characters  are  as  disconnected  and  indepen- 
dent of  each  other  as  though  they  belonged  to  two  se- 
parate persons.  A  provision  for  one  is  as  distinct 
from  every  thing  relating  to  the  other,  as  a  provision 
for  the  soul  is  distinct  from  a  garment  for  the  body. 
Accordingly,  with  the  above  exceptions,  God,  in  his 
whole  treatment  of  moral  agents,  proceeds  without  the 
least  apparent  reference  to  the  dependance  of  the  same 
creatures  on  the  Spirit,  and  shapes  all  his  measures, 
to  all  appearance,  as  though  he  had  no  control  over 
the  mind  but  by  motives.  This  he  does  even  in  regard 
to  good  men.  He  lays  upo«  them  obligations  irre- 
spective of  the  influence  which  he  has  covenanted  to 
bestow.  But  as  the  influence  in  this  case  is  really  a 
reward  to  holy  agents,  I  shall  take  no  further  notice  of 
it,  but  shall  confine  myself  to  the  regenerating  power. 
This,  as  it  relates  to  the  subject  of  the  change,  is  cer- 
tainly no  part  of  the  treatment  of  moral  agents.  To 
him  it  is  not  a  reward,  and  has  no  respect  to  any  thing  he 
has  ever  done.  This  then,  and  the  decree  concerning 
it,  are  clearly  without  the  pale  of  a  moral  government, 
and  may  be  set  in  distinct  contrast  with  the  whole  treat- 
ment of  agents*.  These  are  the  two  points  of  opposi- 
tion which  I  wish  to  set  up  ; — election  and  regenera- 
tion on  the  one  hand,  and  a  moral  government  on  the 
other.     And  what  I  assert  is,  that  in  all  the  treatment 

*'  The  decree  of  election  was  a. reward  to  Christ,  and  a  part  of  a 
moral  government  in  relation  to  him;  and  the  regeneration  of  a  child 
may  be  the  reward  of  a  parent,  and  so  a  part  of  a  moral  government  to 
him.     But  the  child  is  not  treated  as  an  agent  in  the  process,  but  a? 
mere  passive  receiver. 


CHAP,  vlj  OF  MAN  DISTINCT.  205 

of  moral  agents,   and  in  all  the  provisions  for  them, 
God  acts,  with  the   exceptions  already  made,  without 
the  least  apparent  reference  to  election  or  regeneration. 
I  have  shown  you   two  independent  characters  on 
earth.     Tf  God  acts  towards  these  according  to  truth, 
there  will  be  a  counterpart  of  them  in  the  heavens : 
he  himself  will  sustain  two  characters,  (with  the  excep- 
tions already  made,)  altogether  independent  of  each 
other.     As  he  stands  related  to  the  moral  agent,  he  is 
the  Moral  Governour;  as  he  stands   related  to  the 
mere  passive  receiver,  he  is  the  Sovereign  Efficient 
Cause.     I  say  then,  if  he  acts  towards  these  two  inde- 
pendent characters  of  man  according  to  truth,  the  Mo- 
ral Governour  will  appear  in  his  operations  indepen- 
dent of  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause.     And  so  it 
is.     No  one  can  open  his  Bible  without  seeing  these 
two  independent  and  seemingly  opposite  characters  in 
every  page.     In  one  place  you  hear  God  speaking  as 
one  who  has  absolute  control  over  the  mind  and  can- 
not be  disappointed :  "  My  counsel  shall  stand  and  I 
will  do  all  my  pleasure."     "  The  king's  heart  is  in  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  as  the  rivers  of  water ;  he  turneth  it 
whithersoever  he   will;"  in  another,  you  see   him  a 
supplicant  at  the  doors  of  men,  earnestly  striving  to 
reform  them,  with  no  power  or  instrument  in  his  hand 
but  motives ;  and  you  see  him,  after  exhausting  his 
means,  retiring  from  the  field  apparently  disappointed 
and  grieved.     "  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have 
no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  but  that  the 
wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live.     Turn  ye,  turn  ye 
from  your  evil  ways,  for  why  will  ye  die  ?"     "  O  that 
my  people  had   hearkened  unto  me,   and  Israel  had 
walked  in  my  ways  !"     "  How  often   would   I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen    athereth 
her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not."  "  Q 

S 


206  THE  TWO  CHARACTERS  [PART  II. 

that  they  were  wise,  that  they  understood  this,  that 
they  would  consider  their  latter  end  !"     "  What  could 
have  been  done  more  to  my  vineyard  that  I  have  not 
done  in  it  ?"     This  is  not  the  language  of  figure,  nor 
any  thing  after  the  manner  of  men  in  such  a  sense  as 
to  prevent  it  from  being  the  plainest  and  simplest  dia- 
lect of  a  moral  government.     These  two  characters, 
which  appear  every  where  as  distinct  as  though  they 
belonged  to  two  separate  beings,  will  account  for  all 
that  diversity  of  language   in  the  sacred  Scriptures 
which  has  given  rise  to  so  many  opposite  systems. 
Out  of  these  different  exhibitions  of  God  most  of  the 
metaphysical  disputes  have  arisen.     One  class  of  men, 
fastening  their  eyes  on  one  of  these  characters,  have 
in   different  degrees   excluded   election   and   special 
grace;  while  another  class,  too  much  confining  their 
attention  to  the  other  character,  have  proportionably 
overlooked  a  moral  government.     But  the  grand  key 
to  unlock  every  difficulty  is  found  in  this,  that  one  of 
these  characters  stands  related  to  men  as  moral  agents, 
and  the  other  to  men  as  passive  receivers  of  sanctify- 
ing impressions  ;  and  the  latter  two  being  distinct  and 
independent  of  each  other,   the  former  two,  to  accord 
with  truth,  must  be  equally  so. 

These  two  characters  of  God  are  not  only  distinct, 
but  in  some  respects  are  opposite  to  each  other.  In 
one  character  God  wills  to  suffer  men  to  sin,  when  his 
influence  could  easily  prevent ;  in  the  other  he  ear- 
nestly forbids  them  to  sin,  and  urges  all  the  motives  in 
the  universe  to  dissuade  them.  In  one  character  he 
wills  to  suffer  men  to  perish,  when  his  influence  could 
easily  prevent ;  in  the  other  he  swears  by  his  life  that 
he  has  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  but  that 
they  turn  and  live  ;  and  then  presses  them  to  return  as 
though  his  own  existence  was  at  stake.     In  one  cha- 


CHAP.  V.J  OF  MAN  DISTINCT.  207 

racter  he  determined  before  the  non-elect  were  made 
that  they  should  be  left  to  destruction  ;  in  the  other  he 
would  have  us  to  understand  that  he  made  them  from 
the  purest  benevolence ;  and  to  confirm  this,  he  has 
spread  an  ocean  of  atoning  blood  between  them  and 
perdition,  and  follows  them  with  his  entreaties  even  to 
the  gates  of  hell.     Nothing  but  the  confounding  of 
these  two  characters,  or  rather  the  annihilation  of  that 
of  Moral  Governour,  prevents  men  from  seeing  that 
God  could  provide  an  atonement  for  the  non-elect : 
and  that  character  annihilated,  there  is  no  avoiding 
the  broad  and  unqualified  assertion  that  he  made  them 
to  be  damned.     Contemplate  God  in  a  single  charac- 
ter, and  there  is  no  vindicating  the  sincerity  of  his  in- 
vitations to  the  non-elect :  for  then  the  whole  that  can 
be  said  is,  that  he  presses  those  to  live  whom  he  has 
unchangeably  doomed  to  destruction.     Not  a  word  of 
explanation  can  be  offered  ;  and  it  is  as  though  a  man, 
sustaining  a  single  character,  should  pursue  the  same 
contradictory  course.     But  view  God  in  this  double 
character,  founded  on  the  double  relations  of  men,  and 
admit  that  their  capacity  is  a  sufficient  ground  of  treat- 
ing them  as  distinct  and  independent  agents,  and  all  is 
plain.     In  short  this   distinction  between  the  active 
and  passive  characters  of  man,  and  between  the  cor- 
responding characters  of  God,  will  clear  up  very  many 
difficulties  which  are  otherwise  insolvible*.     To  blend 


*  I  am  so  convinced  that  this  distinction  will  clear  up  most  of  the 
solvible  difficulties  in  metaphysical  theology,  that  I  could  wish  to  see 
some  abler  pen  pursue  the  subject  through  all  its  ramifications,  I  have 
C/nly  time  to  drop  the  following  hints  as  a  specimen. 

(1.)  The  seemingly  contradictory  language  which  runs  through  tbe 
Bible  is  thus  explained.  In  one  form  God  speaks  as  related  to  agents, 
with  nothing  but  motives  to  employ  ;  in  the  other,  as  related  to  passive 
subjects  of  sanctifying  impressions,  over  whom  he  has  absolute  control. 

(2.)  It  reveals  the  consistency  between  dependanc©  and  freedom* 


20S  THE  TWO  CHARACTERS        [PART  I*, 

them  would  introduce  endless  confusion  into  every 
part  of  the  divine  administration.  And  to  fill  the  eye 
with  one  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  and  to  build  on 
that  a  system  of  religion,  would  lead  to  the  most  de- 
structive heresies.  Cover  man's  dependance  on  the 
Spirit,  and  we  are  Pelagians  :  take  away  his  moral 

Freedom  is  the  unrestrained  exertion  of  our  own  agency.  Dependance 
leaves  our  agency  entire,  and  of  course  unshackled. 

(3.)  The  consistency  between  decrees  and  free  agency.  Decrees  do 
not  touch  us  until  they  are  executed  upon  us  by  the  power  of  motives, 
•r  by  an  influence  to  mould  our  disposition.  If  we  follow  motives  we 
are  voluntary  and  free  :  if  our  hearts  are  moulded  by  a  divine  influ- 
ence, we  are  only  dependant.  As  men  have  all  the  attributes  of  agents 
none  the  less  for  what  befals  them  as  passive,  God  may  make  and  exe- 
cute a  decree  concerning  the  passive  and  leave  agents  free. 

(4.)  The  consistency  between  election  and  the  fact  that  all  may 
come.  Election  only  respects  the  passive,  coming  is  the  act  of  an  agent. 
Election  only  touches  the  question  whether  we  shall  be  disposed  to 
come ;  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  fact  that  if  we  come  we  shall  be 
veceived. 

(5.)  The  consistency  between  eloction  and  a  fair  chance  for  all. 
Fair  chance  is  predicable  only  of  an  agent,  and  is  where  a  blessing  is 
so  put  within  his  reach  that  he  may  enjoy  it  by  doing  his  duty.  Elec- 
tion only  respects  the  question  whether  he  shall  be  inclined  to  do  his 
duty. 

(6.)  The  difference  between  God's  secret  or  decretive  and  his  re- 
vealed or  preceptive  will.  The  former  respects  the  passive,  (except  so 
far  as  it  is  to  be  executed  by  motives  ;)  the  latter,  agents. 

(7.)  The  propriety  of  exhorting  sinners  to  repent  and  believe,  and 
not  merely  to  use  means  and  do  the  best  they  can.  Their  moral  agen- 
cy and  obligations  are  not  impaired  by  their  dependance,  nor  by  the  ab- 
sence of  the  Spirit. 

(8.)  We  see  what  it  is  which  constitutes  the  difference  in  the  tenour 
of  different  preachers.  Some  dwell  more  on  the  duties  of  agents,  or 
morality,  others  more  on  the  aid  secured  for  the  passive,  calling  on  men 
to  cast  themselves  "on  Christ  and  the  covenant.  And  by  keeping  in 
view  the  two  characters  of  man,  we  may  see  why  and  how  far  both 
methods  ought  to  be  pursued.  As  to  the  reason  why,  the  whole  man 
ought  to  be  addressed  :  as  to  the  proportion  of  bearing  on  the  respec- 
tive characters,  not  enough  on  the  one  hand  to  make  legalists,  not 
enough  on  the  other  to  make  Antinomians.  To  omit  to  notice,  or  to 
lay  too  much  stress  on  either  character,  will  lead  fto  some  errour  af 
head  or  heart. 


I 

CHAP.  V.]  OF    MAN    DISTINCT,  509'. 

agency,  and  the  government  of  God  degenerates  into 
Stoical  fate.  The  only  difference  between  the  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine  of  decrees  and  the  Stoical  doctrine  of 
fate,  is  found  in  the  distinct,  complete,  and  free  agency 
of  man,  by  which  he  differs  from  a  mere  machine. 

These  operations  of  the  Moral  Governour  and  So- 
vereign Efficient  Cause  may  be  called  the  two  great 
departments  of  the  divine  administration.  And  they 
are  so  distinct  that  when  a  man  opens  his  eyes  in  one, 
he  cannot,  so  to  speak,  see  the  other.  If  standing  in 
one  department,  a  Christian  should  ask  why  he  obtain- 
ed mercy,  the  question  would  be,  why  he  was  regene- 
rated :  and  the  answer  would  be,  because'  God  has 
;'  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy."  If  standing 
in  the  other,  he  asks  the  same  question,  the  inquiry 
will  be,  why  he  was  not  punished  with  judicial  blind- 
ness, and  why  he  was  not  debarred  when  he  applied 
for  pardon  :  and  the  answer  will  be,  on  the  one  hand, 
because  he  had  not  committed  the  unpardonable  sin, 
and  on  the  other,  because  God  wished  to  glorify  his 
grace  for  the  encouragement  of  others  who  should  be 
disposed  to  apply.  It  was  in  the  latter  department 
that  Paul  stood  when  he  contemplated  the  reasons  of 
the  mercy  extended  to  him.  "  I  obtained  mercy  be- 
cause I  did  it  ignorantly  in  unbelief. — For  this  cause  f 
obtained  mercy,  that  in  me  first  Jesiis  Christ  might 
show  forth  all  long  suffering  for  a  pattern  to  them  who 
should  hereafter  believe  on  him."  When  the  great 
preacher  of  election  opened  his  mouth  on  such  a  sub- 
ject, you  might  expect  to  hear,  among  the  antecedent 
causes,  something  of  that  electing  decree  and  of  the 
gift  of  that  soul  to  Christ.  Not  a  hint  or  breath  of  any 
such  thing.  He  seems  never  to  have  heard  of  elec- 
tion. The  only  reasons  assigned  why  he  himself  was 
not  actually  left  to  go  down  to  the  pit,  are  these  two  : 

IS -2 


210  THE  TWO  CHARACTERS  [PART  IX* 

that  this  knowledge  had  not  been  sufficient  to  render 
his  sin  unpardonable,  and  that  God  wished  to  make 
him  a  monument  of  mercy  for  the  encouragement  of 
other  returning  sinners.  So  perfectly  distinct  are  the 
two  departments,  like  two  different  worlds,  and  so  im- 
possible, when  a  man  opens  his  eyes  in  one,  even  to 
see  the  other.  And  this  is  the  difficulty  with  our  bre- 
thren. Their  eyes  are  so  immoveably  fixed  in  the  de- 
partment of  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause,  that  they 
never  go  out  of  it  to  contemplate  a  moral  government 
in  relation  to  the  atonement.  They  ask,  in  the  light 
of  their  favourite  department,  why  Simon  Magus  pe- 
rished ;  and  they  answer  truly,  because  he  was  not 
elected.  If  they  would  go  into  the  other  department 
and  ask  the  same  question,  the  answer  would  be,  be- 
cause he  rejected  the  remedy  which  was  so  brought 
within  his  reach  that  he  conld  not  lose  it  without  enor- 
mous guilt;  in  other  words,  because  he  rejected  an 
atonement  which  was  prepared  for  him  as  a  moral 
agent. 

The  Moral  Governour,  with  the  exceptions  already 
made,  proceeds  in  all  his  administration  without  the 
least  apparent  reference  to  election  and  regeneration, 
and  constructs  his  measures  just  as  though  men  were 
independent.  The  reason  is,  there  is  in  man,  re- 
garded purely  as  an  agent,  (which  he  completely  is 
when  separated  from  the  sovereign  influences  of  the- 
Spint,)  a  full  foundation  for  all  the  treatment  and  mea- 
sures which  are  fitted  to  moral  agents.  A  measure  for 
a  moral  agent  is  complete  without  being  so  shaped  as 
to  have  a  manifest  bearing  on  the  same  man  in  a  cha- 
racter in  which  he  is  not  an  agent.  Nor  can  it  be  so 
shaped  without  ceasing  to  be  a  simple  measure  for  a 
Ynoral  agent.  And  the  being  who  brings  it  forward,  if 
he   speaks   according  to  truth,  must  simply  declare  it 


CHAP.  V.]  OF  MAN  DISTINCT.  211 

intended  for  the  moral  agent,  and  must  say  no  more. 
The  measure  may  be  expected,  by  way  of  consequence. 
to  affect  the  man  in  another  character ;  and  the  author 
of  the  measure  may  so  declare  :  but  in  explaining  the 
direct  and  proper  influence  of  the  measure  itself,  he 
cannot  in  truth  allude  to  any  but  a  moral  agent.  Ac- 
cordingly the  Moral  Governour,  with  the  exceptions 
already  made,  proceeds  through  the  whole  of  his  ad- 
ministration as  though  the  other  department  did  not 
exist.  Particularly  in  contemplating  the  privileges  of 
men,  as  we  have  seen,  he  appears  to  have  no  know- 
ledge of  election  or  regeneration  whatever. 

Now  the  atonement  was  certainly  provided  by  the 
Moral  Governour,  because  it  was  a  provision  for  moral 
agents.  It  follows  then  that  in  making  this  provision 
he  had  no  regard  to  the  distinction  of  elect  and  non- 
elect.  An  atonement  made  for  agents,  could  know7 
nothing  of  passive  regeneration  or  any  decree  concern- 
ing it. 

When  I  say  this  of  the  Moral  Governour,  1  do  not  apply 
it  to  theDivineMind xmlimitedly,  but  only  to  God  in  that 
character  in  which  he  stands  related  to  moral  agents. 
If  it  be  asked  respecting  God  unlimitedly,  whether  he 
would  have  provided  an  atonement  if  he  had  not  deter- 
mined to  bestow  the  gift  of  faith  and  consequent  salva- 
tion on  the  elect,  I  am  willing  to  answer  no.  Not  that 
it  would  have  been  inconsistent  for  him  to  have  treat- 
ed the  whole  race  as  mere  agents,  as  he  now  treats  a 
part,  (allowing  wisdom  to  have  seen  a  reason  for  so  do- 
ing ;)  but  I  suppose  that  he  would  not  have  entered  on 
a  system  of  mercy  towards  a  world  without  intending 
to  glorify  himself  in  both  characters,  and  to  gratify  his 
benevolence  more  fully  than  he  could  have  done  by 
the  operations  of  the  Moral  Governour  alone.  But 
certainly  the  saivation  of  the  elect  was  not  all  that  he 


212  THE   TWO  CHARACTERS,  &C.  [PART  II. 

intended  to  gain.  He  had  a  purpose  to  answer  to- 
wards the  non-elect  as  subjects  of  moral  government, 
much  the  same  that  he  accomplishes  by  giving  them 
laws.  He  has  ends  to  answer  by  a  benignant  govern- 
ment over  agents,  wholly  distinct  from  any  which  he 
attains  by  sanctifying  impressions  on  the  heart.  All 
this  is  said  of  God  unlimitedly.  But  in  the  foregoing 
remarks  respecting  the  Moral  Governour,  I  referred 
not  to  the  secret  motives  of  the  Divine  Mind,  much  less 
to  any  purposes  respecting  the  passive,  but  to  the 
avoiced  designs  of  God  in  bringing  forward  a  measure 
for  the  benefit  of  moral  agents. 

I  admit  also  that  God  in  his  secret  covenant,  in 
which  he  treated  about  men  as  passive  recipients  of 
sanctifying  impressions,  had  much  to  do  with  election, 
and  that  too  in  preparing  the  way  for  the  atonement. 
He  gave  the  elect  to  Christ  as  a  reward  for  the  merit 
of  his  obedience  in  making  expiation.  But  that  secret 
transaction,  as  I  expect  to  show  in  the  next  chapter, 
did  not  provide  the  atonement,  by  giving  to  the  death 
of  Christ  its  expiating  virtue.  This  was  done  by  the 
public  transactions,  in  all  which  God  appeared  as  the 
Moral  Governour.  It  was  the  Moral  Governour  who 
commanded  the  Son  to  die,  and  laid  upon  him  the 
stroke  ;  who  thus  as  the  Protector  of  the  law  demand- 
ed and  received  satisfaction  ;  who  accepted  the  offer- 
ing, and  pronounced  it  accepted  by  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.  It  was  he  who  came  forward  with  the 
atonement  before  the  world,  declared  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  made,  and  offered  it  to  men  as  a  provi- 
sion of  his  own.  It  was  the  Moral  Governour  then 
who  appointed,  provided,  and  produced  the  atonement. 
And  what  I  mean  is,  that  in  all  these  public  transac- 
tions he  had  no  declared  reference  to  elect  or  non- 
elect,  but  appeared  as  one  bringing  forward  a  measure 


€HAP.  VI.]     ATONEMENT  NOT  SECRET*  21  £ 

solely  for  moral  agents,  to  be  indiscriminately  applied 
to  all  who  as  agents  would  believe. 


-+  ♦  » 


CHAPTER  VI. 

NOTHING    BELONGED    TO    THE    ATONEMENT     BUT    WHAT 
WAS  PUBLIC. 

The  greatest  mistake  of  all  has  lain  in  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  secret  covenant  between  the  Father  and 
Son  gave  to  the  atonement  its  influence  and  power,  like 
a  contract  between  two  merchants  respecting  the  pur- 
chase of  goods.  This  representation  carries  too  much 
the  appearance  of  something  mercenary  and  selfish  on 
the  part  of  the  Father,  as  though  the  thing  demanded 
was  merely  to  gratify  his  own  personal  feelings.  All 
the  statements  about  the  pearl  paid  in  secret,  or  by  a 
secret  understanding,  for  the  redemption  of  a  hundred 
of  the  thousand  prisoners,  are  of  this  nature.  Where 
the  thing  demanded  is  money  or  a  precious  stone,  to 
gratify  a  private  and  personal  feeling,  the  contract 
which  gives  it  all  its  claim  may  be  made  in  secret. 
But  the  Father  had  no  such  individual  feeling  to  gra- 
tify. He  had  no  desire  or  demand  but  for  an  opera- 
tion upon  public  law  for  the  benefit  of  the  universe* 
Nothing  could  have  the  least  influence  to  satisfy 
him  but  that  operation  upon  public  law.  The  argu- 
ments on  the  other  side  constantly  assume  that  the 
atonement  was  offered  and  accepted  secretly  for  a  cer- 
tain number.  But  it  was  not  offered  or  accepted  se- 
cretly. The  offering  was  among  the  most  public  trans- 
actions of  the  universe  ;  and  the  acceptance  was  no 
less  notorious  than  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  pro- 


214  ATONEMENT  [ PART  II. 

clamations  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  acquittal  of  the  saints 
in  glory.  And  had  it  been  offered  and  accepted  pri- 
vately, as  the  pearl  is  represented  to  have  been,  it 
could  have  had  no  effect. 

We  are  now  upon  a  track  which  will  lead  to  an  easy 
decision  of  the  question.  The  atonement  was  cer- 
tainly a  measure  exclusively  for  moral  agents,  and 
therefore  was  provided  by  the  Moral  Governour.  But 
in  that  secret  covenant  God  was  not  the  Moral  Govern- 
our towards  men,  but  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause : 
'in  other  words,  he  did  not  treat  about  men  as  moral 
agents,  but  about  men  as  passive  receivers  of  regene- 
rating influence.  He  only  promised  that  the  elect 
should  be  made  to  believe,  and  thus  be  brought  into 
that  pale  where  remission  would  meet  all  indiscrimi- 
nately who  should  enter.  This  covenant  then  was  no 
part  of  the  provision  of  the  Moral  Governour  for  moral 
agents. 

Nor  did  this  covenant  give  to  the  atonement  any  of 
its  influence  upon  the  relations  of  moral  agents.  So 
far  as  it  was  a  contract  for  something  which  should 
have  this  effect,  it  was  merely  a  stipulation  that  there 
should  be  an  atonement ;  but  the  matter  and  influence 
of  the  atonement  were  the  same  as  though  such  a  stipu- 
lation had  never  been,  except  that  without  the  consent 
of  the  Son  his  subjection  and  sufferings  would  neither 
have  been  possible  nor  just.  That  covenant  was  the 
mere  yielding  of  consent  on  the  part  of  the  Son,  and 
the  fixing  of  his  reward  on  the  part  of  the  Father. 
That  might  have  been  all,  and  the  elect  might  have 
been  pardoned  as  a  reward  or  favour  to  Christ  without 
his  sufferings,  had  it  not  been  necessary  for  the  honour 
of  the  law  to  produce  a  change  in  their  legal  relations 
as  agents.  This  was  the  proper  and  exclusive  office 
of  the  atonement.     The  whole  of  this  was  done  by 


CHAP.  VI  j  NOT  SECRET.  215 

the   public  command  to  the  Son  to  die,  the  public  in- 
fliction of  the  stroke  upon  him,  and  the  public  expla- 
nation of  the  design.     These  public  transactions  were 
the  whole  which  constituted  an  atonement  for  Peter. 
It  was  not  a  secret  contract  about  him  as  passive,  nor  a 
secret  stipulation  that  there  should  be  an  atonement,  but 
a  public  offering  for  him  as  an  agent,  which  rendered 
it  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  for  him  to  be 
pardoned  when  he  should  believe.     And  besides  re- 
moving the  curse  of  abandonment,  this  was  all   that 
atonement  did  for  Peter :  for  it  is  not  atonement  which 
creates  the  fact  that  men  are  pardoned  ;  that  is  done  by 
the  intervention  of  another  influence  which  secures  to 
them  the  gift  of  faith.     It  was  the  public  transactions, 
and  not  a  private  treaty,  which  made  it  to  be  an  atone- 
ment for  him.     The  meaning  of  its  being  offered  for 
him  is,  not  that  God  designed  it  for  the  benefit  of  the 
man  by  an  operation  on  him  as  passive,  but  that  the 
public  transactions  gave  it  a  bearing  on  him  as  an 
agent,  that  is,  on  his  legal  relations.     In  determining 
then  for  whom  or  how  many  it  was  offered,  we  have 
not  to  consult  the  secret  covenant,  but  only  to  look  on 
the  face  of  the  public  transactions.     It  could  not  be 
for  Peter  further  than  it  was  made  to  be   for  him  by 
the  public  transactions ;  and  it  was  for  as  many  as  the 
public  transactions  made  it  to  be.     It  was  to  exert  its 
whole  influence  upon  public  law.     That  influence  was 
wholly  derived  from  the  open  and  avowed  bearing  of 
the  thing  upon  agents  and  their  relations  ;  that  is,  upon 
creatures   who  had   sinned  and    who   must   act,  and 
on  whose  action  the  effect  must  depend.     And  it  was  for 
as  many  agents  as  by  that  public  bearing  it  rendered 
pardonable  if  they  would  believe.     The  public  expla- 
nation which  gave  it  that  bearing,  then,  is  the  only  in- 
strument which  contains  the   express  purpose.     The 


216  ATONEMENT  [PART  11. 

whole  that  we  mean  therefore  when  we  say  that  the 
atonement  was  for  all,  is,  that  it  was  stated  in  the  pub- 
lic instrument  to  be  for  every  man  indiscriminately  who 
would  believe,  and  that  it  became  a  provision  for  all 
by  the  bearing  it  took  from  this  public  statement. 

Let  us  look  again  at  the  case  of  the  prince  of  Wales. 
The  whole  end  to  be  accomplished  by  his  atonement 
was,  a  public  conviction  that  forgers  should  die.  How 
could  that  conviction  be  wrought  on  the  multitude  by 
any  secret  purpose  of  the  prince  or  his  father,  or  by 
any  secret  agreement  between  them  ?  Allowing  the 
king  to  have  power  to  change  the  hearts  of  the  crimi- 
nals, and  to  have  made  some  private  promise  to  the 
prince  on  that  subject,  what  has  this  to  do  with  public 
law,  or  with  rendering  it  safe  to  pardon  the  men  after 
they  are  reclaimed?  The  whole  that  was  to  accomplish 
this  must  be  public.  And  if  the  death  of  the  prince 
could  do  nothing  without  an  express  purpose,  we  see  at 
once  where  that  express  purpose  must  be  found,  and 
in  what  form.  It  must  not  be  found  in  the  secret  co- 
venant between  the  parties,  (it  might  as  well  be  no 
where,)  but  in  the  public  proclamation.  And  it  must 
not  be  about  the  formation  of  the  character,  (allowing 
such  a  power  to  exist,)  but  about  the  pardon  of  the 
criminals.  Admit  now  that  the  death  of  the  prince 
could  not  convince  the  public  that  forgers  wTould  die  if 
it  shielded  any  who  continued  to  transgress  :  then  the 
proclamation  must  be,  that  he  dies  to  obtain  the  par- 
don of  the  culprits  provided  they  reform.  This  done, 
if  the  life  of  the  prince  is  known  to  be  as  valuable  in 
the  eyes  of  the  government  as  that  of  the  ten,  not  a 
man  in  England  will  dread  the  authority  of  the  law  the 
less  if  all  the  ton  reform  and  live.  There  is  then  a 
full  atonement  for  the  ten,  though  in  the  event  but  five 
accept  the  offer. 


CJHAF.  VI.]  N0T  SECRET.  217 

But  still  the  mind  cleaves  to  the  idea  of  some  secret 
sense  in  which  the  satisfaction  was  offered  and  accept- 
ed.    Let  us  therefore  pause   a  little  longer  on  this 
thought.     After  Christ  had   openly  and   professedly 
died  in  the  room  of  all  in  such  a  sense  that  all  might  be 
pardoned  if  they  would  believe,  how  by  any  secret  un- 
derstanding or  compact  could  he  atone  in  any  higher 
or  other  sense  for  the  elect  ?  A  thousand  private  pur- 
poses and  agreements,  and  a  thousand  deaths  for  them 
in  particular,  could  accomplish  no  more  by  way  of 
atonement  than  was  done  for  all  by  that  public  trans- 
action.    How  then  could  he  limit  the  expiation  to  a 
part  ?  If  it  had  been  gold  or  a  pearl  that  had  made  the 
satisfaction,  it  might  by  a  secret  understanding  have 
been  offered  and  accepted  for  a  few.     But  how  by  any 
secret  covenant  could  one  die  in  the  room  of  a  given 
number,  when  his  death,  as  publicly  explained,  actual- 
ly cleared  out  of  the  way  of  all  every  impediment  to 
pardon  but  unbelief;  and  that  was  a  difficulty  not  to 
be  removed  by  his   dying  in  their  stead,  but  by  the 
meritorious  influence  of  his  obedience  ?    What  chance, 
was  there   for  any  private  transaction  in  things  pro- 
perly belonging  to  the  atonement  ?    What  room  was 
left  for  any  thing  to  be  done  in  secret  analogous  to  the 
private  offering  of  the  pearl  for  one  in  ten  ?    Who  was 
there   to  witness  such  a  covert  and  deceptive  trans- 
action ?    Who  has   been  in  the  cabinet  and  brought 
back  the  report  ?    Who  knows  that  the  satisfaction, 
after  all  these  public  appearances,  was  not  offered  and 
accepted  in  good  faith  for  the  whole  ? 

Suppose  for  a  moment  that  it  was  as  we  have  repre- 
sented ;  that  the  Redeemer  by  his  sin-offering  cleared 
every  difficulty  out  of  the  way  of  the  pardon  of  all  but 
unbelief,  and  then  by  the  merit  of  his  obedience  se- 
cured the  gift  of  faith  to  the  elect :  and  what  more 

1? 


218  ATONEMENT  [PART  II. 

could  he  have  done  for  his  chosen  by  any  thing  public 
or  private  ?  What  need  then  of  searching  for  a  private 
transaction  appertaining  to  the  atonement  itself? 

Having  thus  found  that  the  atonement  was  that  pub- 
lic measure  which  was  brought  forward  before  the 
world  by  the  Moral  Governour,  (or  by  God  as  he  stood 
related  to  moral  agents,)  and  that  no  part  of  it  lay  in 
the  secret  department  of  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause, 
(or  God  as  he  stood  related  to  mere  passive  receivers 
of  sanctifying  impressions  ;)  we  may  now  resume  the 
train  of  thought  which  was  suspended  at  the  close  of 
the  last  chapter,  and  see  My,  as  analogous  to  all  his 
other  operations,  and  zvhy,  as  growing  out  of  truth  it- 
self, the  Moral  Governour,  in  providing  and  producing 
the  atonement,  should  proceed  just  as  though  men  were 
independent  agents,  and  without  the  least  apparent 
reference  to  election  or  regeneration. 

I  have  seen  a  concession  from  an  amiable  and  dis- 
tinguished writer  on  the  other  side,  which  if  steadily 
kept  in  view  will  set  all  right  at  last.  In  showing  that 
the  non-elect  perish  by  their  own  fault  notwithstand- 
ing that  there  is  no  atonement  for  them,  he  says,  "  We 
must  in  all  cases  be  careful  not  to  confound  the  secret 
purposes  of  God  with  the  rule  of  our  duty.  Between 
these  two  things  there  is  often  no  coincidence."  Now 
after  "  the  rule  of  our  duty,"  only  add,  nor  with  any 
other  measure  of  moral  government,  and  every  thing  is 
settled  :  for  then  we  shall  not  confound  any  thing  re- 
lating to  election  w  ith  the  atonement.  And  why  should 
not  this  be  added?  Is  it  not  as  wrong  to  confound 
God's  secret  purposes  respecting  the  passive  with  any 
of  the  measures  adapted  to  agents,  as  with  that  parti- 
cular one  which  we  call  law?  and  wrong  for  the  same 
reason,  because  the  two  are  distinct?  "We  must" 
therefore  "  be  careful  not  to  confound  the  secret  pur- 


-CHAP.  VII.]  NOT  SECRET.  219 

poses  of  God  with  the"  atonement.     "  Betwren  these 
two  things  there  is  often  no  coincidence." 

This  care  we  profess  to  exercise.     We  do  as  we  un- 
derstand from  the  Scriptures  that  God  himself  does. 
When  we  speak  of  a  measure  properly  intended  for 
moral  agents,  we  know  nothing  about  men  as  destined 
to  be  the  subjects  or  not  the  subjects  of  passive  rege- 
neration.    WThen  we  speak  of  the  designs   and  acts 
of  the    Moral   Governour,   we  know  nothing    about 
the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause,  but  speak  of  God  as  he 
appears  in  the  public  order  of  a  moral  government,  and 
scruple  not,  because  the  Scriptures  do  not  scruple,  to 
ascribe  to  him  all  the  aims  which  the  measures  of  that 
^government  are  calculated  to  accomplish.     When  we 
place  ourselves  in  a  moral  government,  we  cannot  see 
the  other  department,  but  speak  of  the  glorious  Being 
at  the  head  of  this  as   though  he  sustained  no  other 
character.     In  short  we  express  ourselves  in  the  pure 
dialect  of  a  moral  government.     And  when  we  turn  to 
the  atonement,  we  know  nothing  about  men  as  elect 
and  non-elect,  but  as  capable  agents,  or  if  we  look  to 
their  moral  character,  as  believers  and.  unbelievers. 
And  then  an  atonement  which  was  offered  that  "  who- 
soever believeth"  might  "  not  perish,"  which  placed, 
and  was  designed  to  place,  remission  so  within  the 
reach  of  all  that  they  may  enjoy  it  if  they  will  do  their 
duty,  and  are   solemnly  bound  to  make  it  their  own^ 
and  cannot  lose  it  without  enormous  guilt,  we  unhesi- 
tatingly pronounce  an  atonement  for  all. 
— *~+~* — 
CHAPTER  VII. 

ATTRIBUTES  OF  MORAL  AGENTS. 

But  of  what  avail  to  the  non-elect  for  God  to  open 
the  way  for  them  to  be  pardoned  upon  their  believipg, 


220  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  II. 

when  he  had  determined  never  to  impart  to  them  the 
gift  of  faith  ?  It  was  no  atonement  for  them  after  all. 
This  is  the  greatest  difficulty  that  rises  up  in  the  mind. 
I  must  however  remark,  that  in  this  question  you  speak 
of  the  same  man  in  two  distinct  characters,  as  distinct 
as  two  different  persons,  and  might  as  well  ask,  of 
what  avail  a  privilege  to  Peter  since  Judas  was  never 
to  be  sanctified  ?  When  you  speak  of  an  atonement  for 
a  man,  you  speak  of  a  privilege  for  a  moral  agent ; 
but  when  you  speak  of  his  being  regenerated,  you 
change  the  scene  in  a  moment,  and  refer  to  him  only 
as  passive,  in  which  character  privileges  have  no  re- 
lation to  him. 

This  objection  goes  further :  it  really  overlooks  all 
that  in  human  agents  which  renders  them  the  proper 
subjects  of  moral  government,  and  on  which  the  whole 
structure  of  a  moral  government  is  founded.  Is  there 
in  a  moral  agent  without  the  Spirit  bottom  enough  to 
support  such  a  privilege,  so  as  to  render  the  provision 
worthy  of  any  account?  If  not,  there  is  not  bottom 
enGV.gh  to  support  any  other  of  the  measures  of  a  mo- 
ral government,  such  as  law,  punishment,  and  the  like. 

The  root  of  the  difficulty  lies  in  overlooking  the  ca- 
pacity of  unsanctified  men.  And  without  capacity  they 
are  no  longer  agents  :  and  when  they  cease  to  be 
agents,  they  indeed  cease  to  be  susceptible  of  the  pri- 
vilege of  an  atonement.  If  the  non-elect  are  as  pow- 
erless in  regard  to  faith  as  dead  masses  of  matter,  I 
admit  that  the  atonement  was  not  made  for  them  in 
any  sense ;  and  then  I  must  consider  the  appearances 
of  such  a  provision  as  calculated  to  deceive.  But  if 
they  possess  the  full  capacity  which  is  the  proper 
ground  of  treating  them  as  moral  agents,  then  there  is 
an  atonement  for  them  as  agents  none  the  less  for  their 
being  unsanctified.     If  a  feast  is  brought  into  a  room 


CHAP.  VII.]  MORAL  AGENTS.  221 

surrounded,  with  statues,  and  it  is  determined  to  impart 
life  only  to  half;  there  may  be  a  ludicrous  proclama- 
tion that  it  is  for  as  many  as  will  receive  it,  but  after 
all  it  would  be  preposterous  to  say  that  it  was  provi- 
ded for  all.  But  if  it  is  brought  into  a  room  surround- 
ed with  living  men,  and  they  are  all  to  share  it  if  they 
will,  and  are  invited  and  urged  to  partake,  then  it  may 
truly  be  said  to  be  provided  for  all,  though  in  the  event 
a  part  refuse  the  invitation.  The  question  then  about 
power  is  really  a  vital  one* 

On  this  and  some  other  accounts  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  analyze  a  moral,  agent  and  to  see  exactly  what 
he  is,  what  attributes  he  possesses,  what  relations  he 
sustains,  and  what  effects  an  atonement  made  for  moral 
agents  ought  to  have  on  him. 

It  is  important  in  the  outset  to  gain  precise  ideas  of 
a  moral  agent,  and  to  carry  the  definition  in  our  minds 
through  the  whole  discussion.  A  moral  agent  then  is 
a  being  capable  of  deserving  praise  and  blame.  But  as 
there  are  no  works  of  supererogation,  and  no  moral 
goodness  among  creatures  but  what  lies  in  conformity 
to  the  will  of  God,  nothing  is  entitled  to  praise  from 
him  but  the  fulfilment  of  an  obligation,  or  to  blame  from 
him  but  the  violation  of  an  obligation.  A  moral  agent 
then,  (to  carry  back  the  idea  one  step  further,)  is  a 
creature  capable  of  fulfilling  or  -violating  obligations. 
But  as  he  cannot  fulfil  or  violate  an  obligation  of  which 
he  is  not  susceptible,  the  radical  definition  of  a  moral 
agent  is,  a  creature  susceptible  of  obligations.  And  as 
the  bonds  are  actually  imposed  by  divine  authority  on 
all  who  are  capable  of  receiving  them,  the  definition 
which  accords  with  matter  of  fact  is,  a  creature  under 
obligations.  When  therefore  we  inquire  what  consti- 
tutes or  is  the  basis  of  moral  agency,  we  are  only  ask- 
T  2 


222  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  II. 

ing  what  that  is  in  the  creature  which  is  the  foundation 
of  obligation. 

That  foundation  is  no  other  than  the  faculties  of  a 
rational  soul,  to  which,  in  reference  to  the  present  sub- 
ject at  least,  I  am  willing  to  add  light.  What  is  it 
which  makes  a  man  rather  than  a  brute  bound  to  love 
and  serve  God  ?  His  relations  to  God  ?  But  a  brute 
has  the  relation  of  a  creature,  and  a  creature  preserv- 
ed and  fed.  A  divine  command  ?  The  question  then 
Returns,  why  is  a  man  more  fit  to  receive  a  divine  com- 
mand than  a  brute  ?  There  must  be  a  basis  to  support 
the  obligation  distinct  from  the  authority  which  impo- 
ses it,  as  a  platform  is  distinct  from  the  hand  which  lays 
a  substance  upon  it.  The  command  only  imposes  it 
from  above,  but  does  not  support  it  from  beneath. 
That  thing  in  the  creature  which  can  sustain  the  obli- 
gation more  than  if  the  command  was  laid  upon  the 
air,  or  a  block,  or  a  brute,  is  the  secret  after  which  I 
am  inquiring.  What  is  that  thing  ?  You  say  it  is  a 
rational  soul.  Then  the  intellectual  faculties  are  the 
basis  of  the  obligation.  The  true  doctrine  on  this 
subject  is,  that  wherever  a  rational  soul  is  found,  there 
are  talents  which  God  has  a  right  to  command. 

This  basis  is  not  at  all  affected  by  the  state  of  the 
temper.  With  the  same  capacity  and  light,  a  bad  man 
is  as  much  bound  to  love  and  serve  God  as  a  good 
man.  A  depraved  disposition  does  not  destroy  or 
weaken  the  basis,  nor  does  a  holy  heart  go  in  to  con- 
>  titute  or  complete  it.  If  it  did,  a  holy  disposition 
would  be  that  in  the  creature  on  which  rests  the  obli- 
gation to  be  holy ;  and  where  the  disposition  is  want- 
ing there  could  be  no  obligation,  and  of  course  no  sin. 
And  until  a  thing  can  be  the  foundation  of  itself,  there 
could  be  no  holiness,  because  there  could  be  no  obli- 
gation to  be  holy.     The  disposition  itself  would  not  be 


CHAP.   VII. J  IfORAL  AGENTS.  223 

holy,  for  it  would  not  be  the  fulfilment  of  a  previous 
obligation,  but  the  basis  of  one  to  follow.  The  pre- 
vious obligation  could  not  exist  without  holiness  ;  but 
the  previous  obligation  must  exist  and  he  fulfilled  be- 
fore holiness  can  exist.  A  holy  disposition  there- 
fore would  be  impossible  :  and  then  an  obligation  to 
holiness  could  not  exist  :  and  then  there  could  be  no 
violation  of  an  obligation,  in  other  words,  no  sin.  Try 
the  principle  in  another  light.  If  disinclination  to 
duty  destroys  obligation,  there  is  no  stable  landmark 
between  right  and  wrong,  but  a  moveable  spectre  which 
recedes  before  inclination  ;  and  so  long  as  a  man  fol- 
lows his  inclination,  (which  he  is  sure  to  do  as  long  as 
he  is  free,)  he  cannot  sin.  And  as  it  is  not  sin  to  be 
forced  against  one's  inclination,  the  possibility  of  sin- 
ning is  excluded  :  God  could  not  create  a  being  capa- 
ble of  sinning  :  and  then  every  law,  human  or  divine, 
which  attempts  to  control  the  inclination,  or  to  impose 
an  obligation  in  opposition  to  it,  is  tyrannical,  and  pu- 
nishment in  every  form  is  oppression  :  no  distinction 
remains  between  moral  good  and  evil ;  every  feeling 
of  disapprobation  or  resentment  against  another  <is 
founded  in  a  delusion  ;  and  instead  of  a  kingdom  of 
moral  agents,  the  Governour  of  the  world  is  left  alone 
amidst  the  lumber  of  innumerable  automata.  To  all 
this  length  you  must  go,  or  return  back  to  the  plain 
principle  of  common  sense,  that  a  rational  soul,  what- 
ever its  temper  may  be,  is  bound  to  submit  to  the  go- 
vernment of  God. 

There  is  no  need  therefore  of  recurring  to  our  ori- 
ginal purity  in  Adam  to  find  the  foundation  of  obliga- 
tion. Under  the  notion  that  sinners  have  no  more 
power  to  believe  than  stocks,  men  have  attempted  to 
justify  the  universal  command  on  the  ground  that  the 
power  was  lost  by  our  own  fault.     If  a  servant,  say 


224  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  II, 

they,  has  cut  off  his  hands  to  avoid  labour,  his  master 
may  still  require  his  daily  task,  and  punish  him  for  the 
neglect.  But  if  a  solid  ground  of  obligation  indepen- 
dent of  Adam  still  remains  in  the  soul,  there  is  no  need 
of  resorting  to  this  labouring  principle  to  vindicate  the 
command.  We  lost  nothing  in  Adam,  (so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  present  subject.)  but  a  right  temper;  and 
the  want  of  that  does  not  impair  the  basis  of  obliga- 
tion which  exists  in  ourselves.  What  else  can  you 
imagine  we  lost  ?  Power  ?  But  what  power  distinct 
from  a  good  heart  ?  Have  we  not  still  power  to  love 
God  if  our  heart  is  well  disposed  ?  Do  you  mean  a 
power  to  make  the  heart  good,  or  a  self-determining 
power  of  the  will  ?  But  did  Adam  himself  possess  that  ? 
What  had  he  which  we  have  not  but  a  right  temper? 
And  that  could  not  have  been  the  ground  of  obliga- 
tion had  it  continued.  Besides,  this  resort  to  original 
holiness  for  the  ground  of  obligation  involves  so  many 
seeming  absurdities,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  made  with- 
out the  most  urgent  necessity.  Take  the  case  of  the 
servant.  His  sin  was  one,  the  act  of  disabling  him- 
self. For  this  he  might  be  punished  as  long  and  as 
much  as  that  single  act  deserved.  But  to  impute  sin 
to  him  for  not  performing  his  task  after  it  had  become 
impossible,  is  contrary  to  all  truth  and  justice.  He 
was  not  to  blame  for  that  omission.  With  the  best 
dispositions  he  could  not  have  prevented  it.  If  God 
looks  at  the  heart,  and  accepts  "  a  willing  mind" 
where  there  is  nothing  else  to  give,  he  could  not  have 
seen  that  servant  striving  with  the  best  desires  to  per- 
form his  task  without  hands,  and  blamed  him  for  the 
failure.  The  sin  was  but  one.  And  if  this  illustrates 
the  case  of  Adam's  posterity,  there  is  but  one  sin  to  be 
charged  against  them  all,  and  that  was  committed  in 
Eden.     The  idea  of  different  degrees  of  criminality  is 


€HAP.  VII.]  MORAL  AGENTS,  225 

a  dream;  and  men  would  have  been  as  guilty,  and 
might  have  received  the  same  punishment,  had  they 
been  born  without  reason.  No  personal  act  of  theirs 
is  sin,  and  it  is  no  matter  what  they  do.  These  con- 
sequences must  follow,  or  there  must  be  in  the  present 
structure  of  the  soul  a  foundation  of  obligation  altoge- 
ther independent  of  Adam's  innocence  or  fall.  And 
where  do  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  men  have  not  in 
themselves  a  complete  foundation  of  obligation  without 
resorting  to  Adam  ?  What  text  from  Genesis  to  Reve- 
lation hints  at  such  a  thing  ?  The  notion  is  altogether 
a  human  inference.  So  far  from  supporting  such  a 
thought,  the  Scriptures  pointedly  charge  sinners  with 
faculties  which  render  them  without  excuse,,  alleging 
that  they  have  eyes  but  see  not,  ears  but  hear  not. 
hearts  but  do  not  understand,  talents  but  will  not  em- 
ploy them,  a  price  in  their  hands  with  no  heart  to  im- 
prove it ;  and  constantly  treat  them  as  moral  agents  in 
their  own  persons,  and  as  fully  so  as  if  there  had  been 
no  federal  head. 

This  independent  basis  of  obligation  is  what  we 
mean,  and  all  that  we  mean,  by  natural  ability. 
We  certainly  do  not  mean  by  this  phrase  a  power 
to  originate  the  disposition,  or  a  self-determining  power 
of  the  will,  but  merely  a  power  to  love  and  serve  God 
if  the  heart  is  well  disposed.  This  power  lies  in  the 
physical  faculties  of  a  rational  soul,  connected  with 
light.  Without  the  faculties  a  man  could  not  love 
God  even  were  it  possible  for  him  to  have  a  good 
heart ;  but  with  the  faculties  and  sufficient  light  he 
could.  The  faculties  with  the  light  therefore  constitute 
exactly  a  power  to  love  and  serve  God  if  the  heart  is 
well  disposed.  And  when  we  ascribe  this  power  to 
sinners,  we  only  assert  that  they  have  the  physical  facul- 
ties of  a  rational  soul ;  and  our  single  object  is  to  make 


226  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  ir* 

out  a  complete  basis  of  obligation.  It  is  so  self-evi- 
dent that  a  man  cannot  be  bound  to  perform  natural 
impossibilities,  or  to  do  what  with  the  best  disposi- 
tions he  has  no  power  to  accomplish,  (as  for  instance 
to  make  a  world,)  that  we  find  it  necessary  to  prove 
the  existence  of  such  a  power  in  order  to  fasten  upon 
the  conscience  a  sense  of  obligation.  But  call  it  by 
whatever  name  you  please,  the  whole  that  we  mean  is, 
that  the  physical  faculties,  accompanied  with  light,  are 
a  complete  and  bona  fide  basis  of  obligation,  indepen- 
dent of  the  temper  of  the  heart,  or  the  action  of  the 
Spirit,  or  original  righteousness  or  sin,  and  none  the 
less  for  man's  dependance.  This  is  all  that  any  Cal- 
vinist  ever  meant  or  can  mean  by  natural  ability*. 

About  the  existence  of  the  thing  therefore,  which 
we  call  natural  ability,  there  can  be  no  dispute.  None 
can  doubt  that  the  worst  of  men  are  rational  beings,  or 
that  their  natural  faculties  constitute  a  power  to  love 
and  serve  God  if  their  hearts  are  well  disposed.  And 
few  will  doubt  that  it  is  on  this  account  that  they  are 
capable  of  receiving  obligations  from  a  divine  com- 
mand. If  any  controversy  remains  it  must  be  about 
the  name  :  and  the  question  will  be,  whether  a  power 
to  love  and  serve  God  if  the  heart  is  zoell  disposed,  can 
properly  be  denominated  an  ability.  For  as  to  the 
term  natural,  long  and  venerated  custom,  as  well  as  the 
necessity  of  having  a  word  of  such  an  import,  has  fas- 
tened to  it  a  meaning  opposite  to  moral.  And  if  the 
thing  in  question  is  properly  called  an  ability,  it  cer- 
tainly is  not  a  moral  one,  (is  not  deserving  of  praise  or 


P*  Even  those  Cnlvinists  who  deny  the  existence  of  disposition,  and 
place  every  thing  in  exercise,  and  of  course  see  no  sense  in  the  appended 
clause,  "if  the  heart  is  well  disposed,"  mean  nothing  more  by  ability 
than  the  physical  power?,  and  have  no  other  end  in  asserting  it  than 
to  make  out  a  proper  basis  of  obligation. 


CHAP.  VII.]  MORAL  AGENTS.  227 

blame.)  and  therefore  must  be  distinguished  by  the  op- 
posite epithet.  In  vindication  of  the  term  ability  I 
submit  the  following  remarks. 

(1.)  When  the  word  is  thus  applied  it  expresses 
what  is  generally  meant  by  power.  When  in  the 
common  affairs  of  life  we  say  that  a  man  has  power  to 
do  a  thing,  we  seldom  refer  to  his  willingness,  and 
never  to  an  ability  to  originate  his  disposition,  but. 
to  a  capacity  to  do  the  thing  if  he  is  so  inclined. 
When  we  excuse  him  for  not  making  or  succeeding 
in  an  attempt,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  able,  we 
never  allude  to  his  disinclination,  nor  to  his  incapacity 
to  control  his  disposition,  but  to  the  want  of  natural 
strength  even  with  the  best  desires.  And  when  we. 
affirm  that  he  is  not  bound  to  perform  impossibilities, 
we  always  mean  that  he  is  not  obliged  to  do  more 
than  he  can  with  a  well  disposed  heart. 

(2.)  As  the  natural  faculties  constitute  that  capacity 
in  which  the  obligation  to  serve  God  is  founded,  they 
bear  the  same  relation  to  the  obligation  that  the  mus- 
cular strength  of  a  slave  does  to  the  obligation  to  lift 
a  weight  when  bidden  by  his  master.  Without  the 
strength  no  command  could  fasten  the  obligation  upon 
him ;  with  the  strength  he  is  reasonably  bound.  In 
like  manner  without  the  faculties  no  command  could 
lay  the  obligation  upon  us  ;  with  the  faculties  the  bond 
is  reasonably  imposed.  That  muscular  strength  of 
the  slave  you  call  power?  because  it  constitutes  an 
ability  to  lift  the  weight  if  he  is  so  inclined,  and  be- 
cause it  forms  the  proper  ground  of  obligation  :  and 
why  not  for  the  same  reasons  call  the  physical  facul- 
ties in  question  by  the  same  name  ? 

(3.)  As  the  denial  of  every  species  of  power  pre- 
sents the  monstrous  idea  of  a  command  to  do  impos- 
sibilities, it  conveys  a  false  and  injurious  idea  of  God^ 


228  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  II. 

and  serves  to  relieve  the  conscience  of  a  sense  of 
blame.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  alleged  ability 
is  qualified  and  limited  by  the  term  natural,  and  is  so 
explained  as  to  exclude  a  self-determining  power,  the 
phrase  has  no  tendency  to  hide  our  dependance,  while 
it  has  all  the  advantage  of  justifying  God  and  fasten- 
ing upon  the  conscience  a  sense  of  obligation  and 
guilt. 

(4.)  No  impediment  lies  in  the  way  of  a  sinner's 
loving  God  but  a  depraved  temper,  for  which  he  is 
wholly  to  blame.  If  you  are  disposed  to  call  this  de- 
praved temper  an  inability,  there  is  no  inability  in  the 
way  but  a  blamable  one.  Now  only  admit  that  an  in- 
ability which  is  blamable  is  properly  called  moral, 
and  that  the  opposite  of  moral  is  natural,  (barely  these 
two  things,)  and  there  is  no  avoiding  the  phrase  in 
question.  If  there  is  no  inability  but  what  is  blamable 
or  moral,  there  is  none  which  is  blameless  or  natural. 
And  if  there  is  no  natural  inability,  there  must  be  natu- 
ral power. 

Thus  it  appears  that  there  exist  in  men  physical 
faculties  which  constitute  a  natural  ability  to  serve 
God,  and  which,  independently  of  their  present  tem- 
per, or  their  original  righteousness,  or  any  divine  in- 
fluence, and  none  the  less  for  their  dependance,  form 
the  proper  basis  of  obligation.  This  principle,  on 
which  is  bottomed  the  whole  structure  of  a  moral  go- 
vernment, is  confirmed  by  all  its  measures  and  deci- 
sions. 

Having  thus  laid  open  the  foundation  of  moral  agen- 
cy, I  will  now  proceed  to  exhibit  the  attributes  of  mo- 
ral agents  in  their  order.     To  moral  agents  belong, 

(1.)  Capacity.  What  they  are  capable  of  doing  if 
well  disposed,  they  may  be  said  to  have  a  capacity  for 
doing,  or  a  natural  ability  to  perform.     In  particular. 


CHAP.  VII. J        MORAL  AGENTS.  229 

till  who  hear  the  Gospel  possess  that  kind  of  power  to 
believe  which  is  the  foundation  of  obligation.  This 
capacity  or  basis  of  obligation  is  altogether  separate 
from  every  thing  belonging  to  the  passive  character  of 
men,  and  must  be  contemplated  without  reference  to 
ihe  action  of  the  Spirit,  or  to  any  decree  respecting 
that  action. 

(2.)  Instruction.  This  is  necessary  to  agents  on 
two  accounts.  First,  because  knowledge,  as  needful 
to  guide  the  understanding,  is  intimately  associated 
with  the  capacity.  Secondly,  to  furnish  motives  to  in- 
fluence the  heart  and  will.  This  introduces  an  im- 
portant circumstance  in  relation  to  agents,  viz.  that  in 
all  instances  they  are  governed  by  motives.  Take 
away  the  connexion  between  motives  and  volition,  and 
mind  would  be  extinct  Not  merely  rational  action, 
but  all  action  of  mind  would  cease.  The  maniac  is 
still  governed  by  motives,  though  distorted  by  a  dis- 
tempered fancy  ;  and  even  that  semblance  of  mind 
which  exists  in  a  brute,  is  governed  by  motives, 

In  both  of  these  points  of  view  instruction  is  ad- 
dressed to  men  only  as  agents.  Only  as  agents  can 
knowledge  guide  them,  only  as  agents  can  motives 
prompt  them.  Upon  this  principle  it  is  that  instruo 
lions  are  poured  upon  them  without  apparent  refer- 
ence to  their  passive  character,  or  to  any  action  or 
decree  of  God  concerning  it. 

(3.)  Law.  This  is  necessary  for  agents  both  to  im- 
pose obligations  and  to  present  motives.  The  con|- 
mands,  promises,  and  threatenings  which  go  in  to  con- 
stitute law,  are  addressed  to  men  only  as  agents.  The 
passive  have  nothing  to  do  with  these  things. 

(4.)  Obligation.  This  rests  upon  capacity  or  na- 
tural ability,  in  other  words,  upon  the  physical  facul- 
ties accompanied  with  light.     It  is  not  diminished  by 

V 


-30  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  It. 

the  dependance  of  man,  nor  by  a  bad  temper,  nor  by 
the  absence  of  the  Spirit ;  nor  is  it  increased  by  origi- 
nal holiness,  nor  by  a  good  temper,  nor  by  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit,  further  than  the  latter  presents  light 
to  the  understanding,  or  is  a  mercy  to  be  acknowledg- 
ed. In  contemplating  men  therefore  as  creatures  un- 
der obligations,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  their  de- 
pendance, or  their  temper,  or  the  action  of  the  Spirit, 
(further  than  is  above  expressed,)  or  with  any  decree 
concerning  that  action. 

(5.)  Moral  character,  good  or  bad.  This  is  formed 
by  the  fulfilment  or  violation  of  obligations,  by  an 
agency  as  distinctly  their  own  and  as  entire  as  though 
they  were  independent.  As  moral  character  is  calcu- 
lated from  their  obligations,  it  is  as  independent  of 
every  thing  passive  as  the  obligations  themselves. 

(6.)  Deserts, — merit  or  demerit,  a  title  to  reward  or 
a  liability  to  punishment.  These  all  result  from  their 
character,  as  grounded  on  their  obligations  and  con- 
duct, and  are  as  independent  of  every  thing  passive  as 
the  character  and  obligations  themselves.  None  but 
agents  bear  any  relation  to  these  things. 

(7.)  Condemnation.  This  is  founded  on  their  de- 
serts, and  is  equally  independent  of  every  thing  pas- 
sive. None  but  agents  bear  any  relation  to  condem- 
nation. 

(8.)  Pardon  and  justification.  These  are  merely 
the  changing  of  the  relations  of  agents,  the  freeing  of 
them  from  punishment,  and  the  entitling  of  them  tore- 
ward.  These  acts  respect  only  agents ;  the  passive 
have  nothing  to  do  with  them. 

(9.)  Provision  for  pardon  and  justification.  This 
of  course  was  made  for  agents  alone,  and  therefore 
without  visible  reference  to  men  as  merely  passive,  or 
to  the  regenerating  influence  of  the  Spirit,  or  to  any 


CHAP.  VII.]  MORAL  AGENTS.  231 

decree  concerning  that  influence.  As  it  was  made  for 
agents,  for  beings  who  were  to  act  towards  it,  and  on 
whose  action  as  a  sine  qua  non  the  effect  was  to  de- 
pend, its  avowed  end  must  have  been  to  open  the  way 
for  their  pardon  and  justification  if  they  would  believe. 

(10.)  Subjection  to  a  final  examination  of  character. 
Men  will  appear  before  the  tribunal  only  as  agents : 
not  as  those  who  have  received  or  failed  to  receive 
divine  impressions,  but  as  those  who  have  acted  right 
or  wrong. 

(11.)  Rewards  and  punishments.  These  will  be 
administered  to  men  in  the  same  character  in  which 
they  appear  before  the  tribunal. 

ANOTHER  SERIES. 

(1.)  Possibility  of  action.  This  grows  out  of  their 
capacity,  which  without  this  would  be  no  capacity. 
What  is  a  capacity  for  action  where  the  action  is  a 
natural  impossibility  ?  As  the  capacity  from  which  the 
possibility  of  action  is  calculated,  is  not  affected  by 
the  presence  or  absence  of  the  Spirit,  nor  by  any  de- 
cree concerning  his  influence,  nor  yet  by  the  certainty 
that  the  capacity  will  not  be  employed,  they  who 
speak  and  act  in  reference  to  agents  have  aright,  with- 
out regard  to  any  of  these  things,  to  assume  that  their 
action  is  possible,  and  to  speak  and  act  as  though  it 
was  likely  to  happen.  Even  the  omniscient  God,  as 
we  shall  see  in  another  place,  shapes  his  measures  as 
though  their  action  was  probable,  even  when  he  fore- 
sees that  it  will  never  occur.  On  the  same  principle 
we  have  a  right,  whenever  an  argument  requires  it,  to 
make  the  supposition  of  the  return  of  the  very  devils 
to  holiness.  As  agents  they  have  a  capacity  to  re-* 
turn  ;  and  all  the  language  of  the  universe  respecting 
ijie  possibility  of  action  refers  of  course  to  agents. 


232  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  !<•' 

It  has  been  said  that  for  the  non-elect  to  accept  the 
atonement  is  naturally  impossible,  because  it  was  de- 
termined not  to  dispose  them  to  accept.  Now  this  is 
wholly  confounding  the  two  characters  of  men,  and  bu- 
rying their  capacity  and  agency  under  their  depend- 
ance.  They  have  as  agents  no  capacity  to  act,  be- 
cause as  passive  they  are  not  acted  upon  !  What  more 
could  you  say  if  they  were  blocks  ?  The  issue,  I  know, 
will  be  the  same  as  though  the  capacity  did  not  exist, 
but  still  the  capacity  makes  all  the  difference  between 
the  government  of  God  and  fate.  If  you  choose  to  say 
that  it  is  morally  impossible  for  them  to  "  come"  on 
account  of  their  wicked  hearts,  to  this,  though  it  ap- 
plies to  them  as  agents,  we  do  not  object. 

(2.)  Susceptibility  of  offers,  invitations,  and  expos- 
tulations. These  are  all  addressed  to  agents  alone, 
without  respect  to  any  thing  but  their  capacity.  They 
constantly  allude  to  the  possibility  of  their  action  and 
to  their  obligations,  and  are  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  these  do  indeed  exist. 

(3.)  Probation  or  trial.  This  is  only  an  opportuni- 
ty afforded  agents  to  act  out  their  character  and 
show  to  the  universe  what  they  will  do  in  the  circum- 
stances in  which  they  are  placed,  irrespectively  of  any 
influence  to  be  exerted  on  the  same  creatures  as  pas- 
sive. I  add  to  the  definition,  that  it  is  an  opportuni- 
ty to  act  in  reference  to  a  reward  or  punishment  pro- 
posed. The  placing  of  a  creature  on  probation  is  the 
treating  of  him  as  a  mere  agent,  without  respect  to  his 
purely  passive  character,  and  therefore  without  refer- 
ence to  any  aids  of  the  Spirit  except  by  way  of  re- 
ward. The  difficulty  which  has  been  found  in  defi- 
ning a  state  of  probation,  disappears  when  the  subject 
is  viewed  in  this  light;  and  the  objections  which  have 
been  raised  against   the  term,  moy  perhaps  be  aba?:- 


CHAP.  VII.]  MORAL  AGENTS.  233 

doned.     These  have  arisen  from  overlooking  the  cha- 
racter of  men  as  agents,  and  the  fact  that  probation  is 
for  them  only  as  such,  and  from  filling  the  eye  with  ab- 
solute decrees  and  promises  which  relate  to  them  as 
purely  passive,  or  passive  in  reference  to  the  promised 
influence,  and  from  making  too  much  account  of  fore- 
knowledge.    Probation  is  a  term  found  only  in  the  di- 
alect of  a  moral  government,  and  is  with  entire  con- 
sistency excluded  by  those  who  speak  only  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  other  department.     But  if  it  is  proper  and 
according  to  truth  for  God  to  treat  men  as  agents  even 
under  the  economy  of  grace,  it  is  proper  for  him  still 
to  put  them  on  probation.     When  the  term  is  thus  ex- 
plained, what  objection  to  its  use  ?  Is  election  brought 
against  it  ?    But  God  treats  agents,  as  we  have  seen, 
just  as  though  there  was  no  election.     Is  foreknow- 
ledge brought  against  it  ?    But  God  treats  agents,  it 
will  appear  hereafter,  just  as  though  there  was  no  fore- 
knowledge.    Are  the  absolute  promises   of  the  cove- 
nant brought  against  it  ?  These  are  made  to  men  as  the 
reward  of  agents,  but  are  fulfilled  upon  them  as  pas- 
sive  receivers.     Now   it   will   appear  hereafter  that 
while  to  men  as  passive  receivers  of  stipulated  impres- 
sions, the  promises  of  God  are  absolute,  to  the  same 
men  as  mere  agents,  his  treatment  is  still  conditional. 
While  in  the  former  character  men  have  full  evidence 
that  they  shall  never  be  left  to  apostacy,  in  the  cha- 
racter of  mere  agents,  whose  persevering  holiness  is 
both  a  duty  and  essential  to  salvation,  their  final  ac- 
ceptance is  still  suspended  on  their  enduring  to  the 
end.     Probation  therefore,  as  the  treatment  of  mere 
agents  irrespective  of  divine  influence  to  incline  them 
to  act,  may  exist  after  the  full  assurance  of  hope,  and 
for  the  same  reasons,  after  abandonment  to  judicial 
blindness.     What  objection  then  to  the  word  ?  It  im- 
U  2 


234  ATTRIBUTES  OP  ['PART  II. 

ports  nothing  uncertain  in  the  divine  mind,  nothing  un- 
stable in  the  covenant  of  redemption  or  of  grace,  but 
merely  the  treatment  of  men  as  rational  and  accounta- 
ble beings.  It  imports,  in  short,  exactly  what  is  set 
forth  in  the  parables  of  the  talents  and  the  pounds** 
and  in  many  other  parts  of  Scripturef. 

To  agents  also  belong  all  individual  experiments 
upon  the  moral  character.  None  but  agents  have  a 
moral  character  to  develope.  Such  experiments  are 
made  of  course  without  reference  to  any  thing  passive 
in  men,  and  just  as  though  they  were  independent. 

(4.)  Opportunity  or  a  fair  chance  to  obtain  good. 
A  fair  chance  actively  to  obtain,  is  where  a  blessing  is 
so  placed  within  the  reach  of  an  agent  that  he  may 
enjoy  it  by  doing  his  duty.  The  expression  always 
alludes  to  his  capacity  and  the  possibility  of  his  ac- 
tion. Opportunity  is  predicable  only  of  agents,  as  it 
would  be  preposterous  to  say  that  a  man  has  an  op- 
portunity to  receive  a  divine  impression  which  is  to 
be  made  without  respect  to  any  thing  he  has  ever  done 
or  will  do.  The  term  ahvays  refers  to  some  action 
which  may  follow ;  and  the  thing,  limited  as  it  is  to 

*  Mat.  25.  14—30.  Luke  19.  12—26. 

t  "  I  know,"  says  Dr.  Watts,  "  it  has  been  the  opinion  of  some  pep- 
sons»th»t  this  life  is  not  properly  called  a  state  of  probation,  or  trial  of 
men  for  eternity ;  because  the  final  event  is  not  uncertain,  since  it  is 
known  to  God  already,  and  partly  determined  by  him.  And  yet  these 
very  persons  will  say  that  a  season  of  affliction  or  temptation  is  a  sea- 
son of  trial  to  the  people  of  God  ;  for  it  is  so  called  in  Scripture  :  2  Cor. 
3.2.  Heb.  11.  36.  1  Pet.  4.  12.  and  1  Pet.  1.  7.  it  is  called  the  trial  of 
our  faith,  &c.  Now  I  would  fain  know  whether  the  event  of  every  sea- 
son of  trial,  of  every  kind  of  men, — be  not  known  to  God.  And  in  this 
sense  it  is  not  uncertain.  And  yet  Scripture  with  much  propriety  calls 
one  a  season  of  trial :  and  I  see  no  reason  to  exclude  th«  other  from  the 
same  name;  especially  since  the  sacred  writers  use  it  for  wicked  men 
also  1  ev.  3.  10.  'I  will  keep  thee  from  the  hour  of  temptation,'  or 
•  which  shall  come  upon  all  the  world,  to  try  them  which  dwell 
upon  the  earth.'  »    Watts'  Works,  Vol.  6.  p.  285.  Note. 


CHAP.  VII.]  MORAL  AGENTS.  235 

agents,  is  entire  without  the  Spirit  or  any  decree  con- 
cerning his  influence*. 

(5.)  Privileges.  The  radical  definition  of  a  privi- 
lege is,  a  means  of  happiness  which  a  man  has  a  ca- 
pacity, (or  is  able  if  well  disposed,)  to  improve  for  his 
good.  It  is  always  reckoned  originally  from  his  natu- 
ral ability.  But  in  a  moral  government  a  shorter 
course  is  taken,  and  it  is  reckoned  immediately  from 
his  obligations,  which  are  founded  on  his  ability. 
Whatever  he  ought  to  improve,  is  accounted  a  price 
put  into  his  hands.  The  definition  of  a  privilege  then 
in  a  moral  government  is  this,  a  means  of  holiness  or 
happiness  which  one  is  under  obligations  to  improve 
for  his  good.  The  word  never  denotes  a  final  bless- 
ing, but 'a  means  which  will  lead  to  a  final  blessing  if 
rightly  improved. 

Privileges  are  predicable  only  of  agents.  We  do 
not  speak  of  the  privilege  of  being  acted  upon,  the 
privilege  of  being  the  passive  subject  of  impressions. 
It  may  be  a  favour  to  be  impressed.  It  is  a  mercy  to 
be  elected  and  regenerated,  but  not  a  privilege,  except 
so  far  as  it  is  capable  of  being  improved  by  an  agent. 
It  is  indeed  a  privilege  to  be  permitted  to  pray  for  the 
Spirit,  but  this  is  the  privilege  of  an  agent.  It  is  a 
privilege  that  the  mission  of  the  Spirit  has  been  pro- 
cured for  men,  for  it  is  a  blessing  which  they  may  im- 
prove by  faith  and  prayer  for  their  good.  But  no- 
thing is  a  privilege  but  what  belongs  to  an  agent. 

A  privilege  then  is  complete  without  any  influence 
of  the  Spirit  inclining  the  man  to  improve  it.  It  m 
complete  provided  his  obligation  to  improve  it  is  com- 
plete.    If  he  possesses  that  ability  to  use  a  blessing 

*  Chance,  like  possibility,  is  not  equally  confined  to  the  active  sense. 
Thus  we  say  that  a  man  stands  a  chance  to  draw  a  prize,  or  to  be  re* 
generated.    But  opportunity  excludes  the  passive  sense  altogether. 


236  ATTRIBUTES  OP  [PART  tU 

for  his  good  which  is  the  bona  fide  basis  of  obligation^ 
it  may  be  charged  against  him  as  a  privilege  with  as 
much  reason  as  though  the  enjoyment  of  it  depended 
on  his  stretching  out  the  hand.  A  benefit  so  placed 
within  his  reach  that  he  ought  to  make  it  his  own,  is 
his  own.  It  is  a  blessing  in  his  hands  till  he  throws  it 
away ;  and  the  traces  of  it  will  still  be  found  upon 
him  as  an  accountable  being.  Otherwise  the  abuse  of 
privileges  is  a  phrase  altogether  without  a  meaning, 
and  is  no  more  applicable  to  men  than  to  statues.  It 
is  only  because  it  is  difficult  to  realize  the  complete- 
ness of  the  obligations  of  the  non-elect  to  believe, 
that  we  doubt  whether  the  atonement  is  a  complete  pri- 
vilege to  them.  We  pore  so  much  on  their  inability, 
and  lay  the  ground  of  their  obligation  so  much  in 
Eden,  that  it  becomes  difficult  to  realize  that  they  are 
under  the  same  present,  personal  obligations  to  believe 
that  they  are  to  do  any  outward  act.  If  remission 
was  offered  them  on  the  simple  condition  of  their 
stretching  out  the  hand,  it  would  be  easy  to  see  that  the 
privilege  was  complete,  because  it  would  be  obvious 
that  their  obligation  was  perfect.  Only  let  it  be 
realized  that  without  reference  to  Adam  they  are  under 
as  entire  obligations  to  believe  as  they  would  be  to 
extend  an  arm  at  the  divine  command,  and  every  dif- 
ficulty vanishes. 

Or  to  take  the  subject  in  another  view,  what  more 
could  be  done  for  mere  agents?  If  a  foundation  is 
laid  in  the  atonement  for  them  to  be  pardoned  if  they 
will  believe,  and  the  offer  is  made  to  them,  accompa- 
nied with  those  instructions  and  commands  which  lay 
them  under  complete  obligations  to  obtain  remission, 
and  which  leave  them  no  excuse  for  perishing,  what 
more  could  be  done  for  mere  agents  ?  If  more  is  done 
it  must  be  by  regenerating  influence  on  the  passive ; 


CHAP.  VII.]  MORAL  AGENTS.  -37 

but  no  power  could  make  that  any  part  of  a  privilege. 
When  God  has  made  those  arrangements  which  com- 
plete the  obligations  of  men  to  be  saved,  he  can  lift  his 
hand  to  heaven,  and  without  a  figure,  bat  merely  id  the 
character  in  which  he  stands  related  to  agents,  truly 
and  literally  say,  "  What  could  have  been  done  more 
to  my  vineyard  that  I  have  not  done  in  it  ?" 

And  yet  it  is  asked,  what  possible  privilege  could 
the  atonement  be  to  men  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins, 
and  on  whom  God  was  determined  not  to  exert  a  life- 
giving  power  ?  What  could  the  atonement  prove  to 
them  but  an  aggravation  of  their  torment  ?  And  these 
questions  have  been  urged  with  as  much  confidence  as 
it  would  have  been  asl^ed,  what  privilege  can  light  be 
to  a  man  born  blind  ?  This  mighty  difficulty  which 
struggles  in  so  many  minds,  has  arisen  from  overlook- 
ing the  capacity  of  sinners,  and  from  placing  them  be- 
fore the  eye  as  mere  passive  recipients,  in  an  affair 
which  concerns  them  only  as  moral  agents.  And  when 
moral  agents  are  put  out  of  view,  and  men  are  regarded 
merely  as  passive  subjects  of  absolute,  immutable, 
efficient  decrees,  why  then  indeed  you  cannot  find  upon 
the  non-elect  any  privilege,  or  any  chance  or  possi- 
bility of  obtaining  life.  These  things  were  never 
affirmed  of  men,  except  by  a  confusion  of  terms,  in 
any  other  character  than  that  of  moral  agents.  Bui 
to  deny  that  a  means  of  happiness  which  men  are 
bound  to  use  for  their  good  is  a  privilege,  unless  they 
are  acted  upon  by  the  Spirit,  is  to  change  the  whole 
language  of  the  Bible  for  a  dialect  befitting  a  course 
of  action  upon  passive  machines.  It  is  to  break  up 
all  the  language  of  the  world.  And  it  is  manifestly 
untrue;  for  the  worst  of  men  are  still  moral  agents,  and 
under  reasonable  obligations  to  live  by  the  atonement ; 
and  the  language  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject  expresses 


238  ATTRIBUTES  OF  [PART  IF. 

realities,  or  guilt  is  a  name  and  punishment  oppres- 
sion. It  is  so  or  the  capacity  of  creatures,  separate 
from  the  action  of  the  Spirit,  is  no  adequate  basis  to 
support  any  of  the  measures  of  a  moral  government. 
Why  then  issue  laws  where  men  are  not  to  be  con- 
strained to  obey  ?  or  invitations  and  promises  where  a 
sovereign  power  is  not  to  give  them  effect?  In  short, 
upon  this  principle  the  measures  of  a  moral  govern- 
ment, separated  from  the  action  of  the  Spirit,  are  as 
unsuitable  for  men  as  for  stocks. 

But  to  put  the  fact  that  the  atonement  is  a  privilege 
to  the  wicked  beyond  all  doubt,  I  can  bring  the  whole 
weight  of  the  divine  integrity  to  support  it.  That 
God  does  account  to  men  as  privileges  whatever  they 
ought  to  improve  for  their  happiness,  and  holds  them 
as  responsible  for  abused  privileges  as  for  a  violated 
law,  we  have  already  seen.  And  now  to  come  to  the 
very  thing  itself,  the  atonement,  yes  the  atonement,  as 
being  exactly  what  it  is,  an  expiation  for  sin,  is  charg- 
ed against  the  wicked  as  a  privilege ;  and  the  charge 
will  be  acted  upon  in  proceedings  most  demanding 
the  precision  of  justice  and  truth.  It  is  not  true  merely 
in  the  shape  of  a  nice  and  studied  phraseology,  but  is 
a  ponderous  reality  which  will  be  recognised  in  the 
most  solemn  transactions  of  the  universe.  The  just 
God,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter  by  a  large  and  lumi- 
nous array  of  texts,  not  only  pronounces  with  all  his 
veracity  that  the  wicked  possess  the  privilege,  but 
will  judge  them  at  the  last  day  for  throwing  it  out  of 
their  hands,  and  will  found  on  that  fact,  stable  enough 
to  support  the  infinite  weight,  the  retribution  of  eternal 
fire.  Could  God  himself  give  testimony  more  decided 
than  this  ?  If  then  the  moral  government  of  God  is 
not  a  delusive  show,  and  considering  the  undeniable 
sensibilities   of  creatures,   a  system   of  palpable  op- 


CHAP.  VII. j         MORAL  AGENTS.  239 

pression,  it  never  ought  to  have  been  doubted  that  the 
atonement  is  a  privilege  even  to  those  who  reject  it. 

But  how  can  it  be  a  privilege  to  them  if  it  did  not 
render  their  pardon  possible  even  on  the  supposition 
of  their  faith  ?  The  pearl,  it  is  said,  would  have  been 
paid  for  the  900  prisoners  had  it  bern  foreseen  that 
they  would  accept  the  offered  release ;  but  it  was  not 
paid  for  them,  and  a  natural  impossibility  lies  in  :he 
way  of  their  coming  out.  According  to  this  represen- 
tation the  atonement  is  not  a  privilege  to  those  who 
perish,  but  only  would  have  been  h^d  it  been  foreseen 
that  they  would  believe,  ft  ought  not  then  to  have 
been  charged  against  them  as  such. 

These  are  all  the  attributes  which  it  seems  neces- 
sary to  name.  But  before  the  chapter  closes  I  will 
make  a  few  general  remarks. 

All   the  attributes  which  have  been  mentioned  are 
inseparably  united  in  every  moral  agent,  and  can  no 
more  be  divided  than  the  essential  properties  of  mat- 
ter.    For  instance,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  being  a 
sinner,  and  needing  an  atonement,  without  a  capacity 
to  accept  it.      For  without  a  capacity  to  believe  there 
would  not  be  a  capacity  to  obey ;  and  without  a  capaci- 
ty to  obey  there  would  not  be  a  capacity  to  sin.     You 
must  not  split  up  and  divide  the  essential  attributes  of 
a  moral  agent.     You  must  not  contemplate  him  as  a 
•sinner,  without  contemplating  him  as  capable  of  faith, 
To  say  that  he  needs  an  atonement,  and  yet  labours 
under  a  natural  incapacity  to  believe,  is  the  same  sun^ 
tiering  of  essential  properties,  and  the  same  contra- 
diction, as  to  say  that  a  mass  of  matter  has  shape  but 
not  impenetrability,  or  that  a  ball  is  not  round.     Fur- 
ther,  if  a  man  has  a  capacity  to  believe,  then  his  faith 
is  naturally  possible,  then  he  is  susceptible'of  a  fair 
offer  of  life,  of  a  fair  opportunity  or  chance  to  obtain 


•240  ATTRIBUTES  0P  [PART  If. 

it,  of  the  complete  privilege  of  an  atonement,  and  of  a 
course  of  probation  or  trial.  Such  a  possibility  of 
action  and  susceptibility  of  privileges  are  inseparable 
from  capacity,  are  inseparable  of  course  from  a  sin- 
ner. A  man  cannot  be  one  to  whom  an  atonement  is 
adapted,  that  is,  a  sinner,  but  in  the  character  in  which 
he  is  capable  and  susceptible  of  all  these  things.  And 
to  call  him  a  sinner,  and  yet  deny  the  natural  possi- 
bility of  his  believing,  or  his  fair  chance  to  live  by  the 
atonement,  or  the  completeness  of  his  privilege,  (al- 
lowing the  Gospel  to  be  in  his  hands,)  is  the  same 
contradiction  as  is  noticed  above.  Further,  if  the 
atonement  was  made  for  sinning  agents,  it  was  made 
for  them  as  creatures  who  were  to  act  towards  it,  who 
were  to  accept  or  reject  it ;  otherwise  the  essential 
attributes  of  agents  are  divided.  Now  if  the  enjoy- 
ment of  it  depends  on  their  accepting  it,  in  other 
words,  if  they  cannot  enjoy  it  without  accepting  it, 
then  it  was  made  with  a  distinct  understanding  that  it 
was  njt  to  be  enjoyed  by  them  without  their  fulfilling 
that  condition.  In  this  sense  the  provision  was  made 
for  them  conditionally.  It  must  have  been  so  made  if 
made  for  sinning  agents,  or  the  essential  attributes  of 
agents  are  divided.  No  matter  what  influence  on  the 
same  creatures  as  passive  was  to  secure  their  faith ; 
yet  the  provision  for  agents,  which  could  not  be  en- 
joyed without  their  act  in  believing,  was  certainly  con- 
ditional as  to  its  application.  Further,  if  the  atone- 
ment so  far  affects  any  agent  that  he  is  susceptible  of 
the  offer  of  its  benefits,  it  must  affect  all  his  other  re- 
lations which  are  capable  of  being  affected  by  such  a 
measure  ;  it  must  give  him  a  fair  opportunity  or  chance 
to  live  by  it,  must  put  him  completely  upon  probation, 
and  be  to  him  a  perfect  privilege ;  otherwise  the  es- 
sential attributes  of  an  agent  are  divided.      If  the 


CjHAP.  VlII.j  MORAL  AGENTS.  241 

atonement  so  affected  the  relations  of  Simon  Magus 
that  he  could  receive  the  offer  of  pardon  by  it,  then  it 
gave  him  a  fair  chance  for  pardon,  put  him  fully  upon 
probation,  and  was  to  him  the  complete  privilege  of  an 
atonement. 

Keeping  in  mind  that  the  atonement  was  made  for 
none  but  moral  agents,  we  can  now  see  what  kind  of 
effects  we  must  look  for  on  men  in  deciding  for  how 
many  it  was  made.  We  must  search  only  for  those 
effects  which  would  result  to  agents,  and  not  for  any 
which  belong  to  mere  receivers  of  sanctifying  impres- 
sions. These  two  characters  of  man  are  as  distinct 
as  body  and  soul.  Now  in  examining  whether  a  pro- 
vision for  the  soul  is  complete,  you  have  not  to  ask 
whether  it  involves  a  provision  for  the  body.  For 
the  same  reason,  in  deciding  whether  the  atonement 
was  a  complete  provision  for  Simon  Magus  as  a  moral 
agent,  you  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  whe- 
ther it  stood  connected  with  a  design  to  regenerate 
him.  If  you  find  on  him  the  offer  of  pardon  by  it,  and 
a  capacity  to  accept  the  offer  if  well  disposed,  or  a  na- 
tural possibility  of  believing,  then  you  find  on  him  a 
fair  chance  to  live  by  it,  and  the  complete  privilege  of 
an  atonement,  and  find  him  fully  placed  by  it  in  a  state 
of  probation.  And  then  you  find  upon  him  all  the 
effects  which  could  result  from  the  atonement  to  a  mere 
moral  agent.  And  then  you  may  pronounce  unhesi- 
tatingly that  it  was  fully  made  for  him  as  such. 


■»♦  » 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

A  MORAL  GOVERNMENT. 

Before  I  proceed  to  other  principles  observed  m 
the  treatment  of  agents.  I  will  stop  here  and  exhibit 

X 


°24c2  A    MORAL  [PARTIS 

the  outlines  of  a  moral  government.  As  this  is  no- 
thing more  than  the  treatment  of  moral  agents,  and 
a  treatment  according  to  truth,  or  according  to  the 
powers  and  attributes  which  they  possess,  the  discus- 
sion will  form  a  counterpart  to  the  last  chapter,  and 
will  go  to  confirm  the  principles  there  laid  down.  On 
this  account  I  introduce  it  here.  I  have  other  reasons 
for  presenting  the  subject.  Were  the  mind  familiariz- 
ed to  the  principles  and  operations  of  a  moral  govern- 
ment, it  could  more  easily  contemplate  men  in  the 
distinct  character  of  moral  agents,  and  see  some  mean- 
ing in  a  provision  for  them  as  such.  It  seems  to  have 
been  thought  that  such  a  provision,  when  separated 
from  regenerating  power,  is  worthy  of  no  account ;  in 
other  words,  that  a  mere  measure  of  moral  govern- 
ment is  of  no  importance  to  men  when  separated  from 
the  acts  of  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause.  This  would 
be  true  if  men  were  stocks,  but  cannot  be  true  if  there 
is  in  them  a  foundation  for  treating  them  as  rational 
and  accountable  beings.  That  treatment  by  itself  forms 
an  immensely  important  part  of  the  divine  administra- 
tion ;  and  it  may  serve  to  correct  the  mistake  to  see 
how  much  of  the  glory  of  God,  even  under  the  dis- 
pensation of  grace,  this  department  really  compre- 
hends. 

In  a  limited  sense  a  moral  government  is  the  mere 
administration  of  law ;  but  in  a  more  general  and  per- 
fect sense  it  includes  the  whole  treatment  which  God 
renders  to  moral  agents.  This  treatment  certainly 
constitutes  a  distinct  and  very  important  department 
of  divine  operations,  and  ought  as  a  whole  to  be  co- 
vered by  a  general  name.  And  what  name  more  pro- 
per than  moral  government,  especially  as  the  thing 
accords  with  the  variety  of  particulars  comprehended 
under  the  name  of  government  in  human  affairs  ?   The 


CHAP.  VIII. J  GOVERNMENT.  243 

government  of  Great  Britain  consists  not  merely  in 
making  and  executing  laws,  but  in  all  those  operations 
in  which  the  rulers  as  such  come  into  contact  with  the 
subjects  as  such.  If  they  establish  churches  for  pub- 
lic worship,  and  sunday-schools  for  instruction,  and 
saving  banks  as  a  motive  to  diligence  and  economy, 
and  hospitals  as  a  merciful  provision  ;  if  they  make 
experiments  upon  the  temper  of  their  subjects,  or  enter 
into  contract  with  individuals  ;  if  they  grant  audiences, 
and  receive  petitions,  and  pardon  criminals,  and  grant 
pensions  and  privileges  ;  these  are  all  the  operations 
of  the  government  of  Great  Britain.  In  like  manner 
I  comprehend  in  a  moral  government,  not  only  the 
dispensation  of  law,  but  all  the  institutions  of  religion, 
all  the  instructions  furnished,  all  the  motives  presented, 
all  provisions  made  for  moral  agents,  all  experiments 
upon  the  human  character,  all  covenants  entered  into3 
all  audiences  granted,  all  answers  to  prayer,  all  acts 
of  pardon  and  justification,  all  privileges  afforded,  and 
whatever  else  belongs  to  creatures  as  capable  of  ac- 
tion and  choice,  as  governable  by  motives,  as  suscep- 
tible of  instruction  and  obligations,  of  praise  and  blame, 
of  opportunities  and  privileges,  or  in  a  word,  as  sub- 
jects of  moral  discipline. 

The  whole  fabric  rests  upon  the  principle  that  all 
this  treatment  is  suited  to  rational  creatures  even  with- 
out the  Spirit,  in  other  words,  that  they  are  complete 
moral  agents  without  supernatural  influence.  The 
Moral  Governour  grounds  his  claims,  not  on  their  tem- 
per, nor  on  their  original  righteousness,  nor  on  any 
spiritual  aids  afforded,  but  on  their  physical  faculties 
accompanied  with  light,  or  their  natural  ability.  By 
comparing  their  obligations  with  their  conduct,  and 
without  reference  to  any  thing  else,  he  judges  of  their 
efcaracter  and  deserts.      From  their  obligations  he 


244  A  MORAL  [PART  II* 

estimates  their  privileges,  reckoning  to  them  as  such 
whatever  they  ought  to  improve  for  their  good.  Where 
a  blessing  is  so  placed  within  their  reach  that  they  can 
enjoy  it  by  doing  their  duty,  he  charges  against  them 
an  opportunity  or  fair  chance  to  obtain  it.  He  makes 
experiments  upon  their  temper  just  as  though  they 
were  independent.  In  all  his  measures  he  assumes 
from  their  capacity  that  their  holy  action  is  possible. 
He  presents  instructions  and  motives  fitted  to  influence 
rational  beings  as  though  he  expected  the  effect  from 
their  own  independent  powers.  He  commands,  in- 
vites, rewards,  and  punishes,  as  though  there  was  no 
Spirit.  With  the  exceptions  mentioned  in  a  former 
chapter,  he  never  once  alludes  to  the  passive  charac- 
ter of  men  throughout  the  whole  administration  of  a 
moral  government,  but  holds  his  way  through  the  world 
with  an  eye  apparently  filled  with  agents  alone.  He 
sets  before  him  a  race  of  distinct  and  complete  agents, 
and  proceeds  like  an  earthly  prince  who  has  no  con- 
trol over  the  minds  of  his  subjects  but  by  motives. 
This  must  be  apparent  to  any  one  who  opens  his  Bi- 
ble, and  has  already  been  proved  by  quotations  suffi- 
ciently numerous.  In  short  a  moral  government  is  a 
world  by  itself,  because  moral  agents,  so  to  speak,  are 
complete  entities  in  themselves. 

These  principles  of  a  moral  government,  which  are 
every  where  conspicuous  on  the  sacred  page,  are  what 
Arminians  have  discovered,  and  set  themselves  to  de- 
fend, in  opposition  to  doctrines  which  they  thought 
irreconcilable  with  these.  As  advocates  for  the  fun- 
damental laws  of  a  moral  government,  they  deserve 
real  praise  :  but  their  errour  has  lain  in  not  perceiving 
that  all  the  attributes  of  moral  agency  are  perfectly 
consistent  with  absolute  dependance.  If  ever  this 
unhappy  division  in  the  Church  is  healed,  it  must  be 


CHAP.    VIII.]  GOVERNMENT.  245 

on  the  ground  here  taken,  by  showing  that  respectable 
class  of  men  that  all  the  prerogatives  of  a  moral  go- 
vernment can  be  maintained  in  perfect  consistency 
with  absolute  election  and  special  grace. 

Considered  in  relation  to  its  dominion  over  the 
mind,  a  moral  government  may  be  called  a  govern- 
ment of  motives;  for  these  are  the  instruments  by 
which  it  works.  It  is  a  course  of  acting,  not  upon 
the  disposition  by  insensible  influence,  but  upon  the 
reason  and  conscience  of  a  rational  being  by  manifest 
motives.  The  only  exception  is  where  sanctifying 
power  is  exerted  by  way  of  reward,  or  out  of  gracious 
respect  to  something  which  an  agent  has  done.  But 
all  sovereign  influences  of  the  sanctifying  Spirit,  as 
well  as  all  decrees  concerning  them,  belong  to  the 
other  department*. 

*  In  other  respects  sovereignty  is  not  excluded  from  a  moral  govern- 
ment. It  is  largely  exercised  in  the  rewards  and  punishments  of  the 
present  life,  in  respect  of  time,  manner,  and  degree.  It  is  exercised  in 
the  changes  of  dispensations,  in  the  enactment  of  positive  statutes,  ia 
the  different  degrees  of  light  afforded  to  different  nations  and  ages,  ia 
the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Spirit  on  the  unregenerate,  (whicb 
are  as  really  a  part  of  the  treatment  of  agents  as  any  other  instruction,) 
and  in  many  other  respects.  The  atonement  itself  was  sovereignly  ap- 
pointed. Nothing  limits  sovereignty  but  law  and  covenant.  If  any 
thing  more  is  included  in  a  moral  government  than  what  is  according  to 
law  or  covenant,  it  must  be  sovereignly  directed. 

The  whole  process  of  sanctification  after  the  regenerating  act,  seems 
to  fall  within  this  department :  for  though  the  same  sovereignty  attends 
it  as  to  time,  manner,  and  degree,  that  marks  the  other  rewards  of  the 
present  life^  it  is  still  of  the  nature  of  a  reward,  and  was  in  general 
promised  assach  to  the  first  act  of  faith.  If  however  any  part  of  it 
can  be  considered  so  purely  sovereign  as  not  to  fall  under  the  charac- 
ter of  a  reward,  that  part,  I  own,  must  be  excluded  from  a  moral  go- 
vernment ;  for  nothing  entitles  a  motion  of  the  Spirit  to  be  brought  into 
this  department  but  its  being  eithear  a  reward  or  a  mere  act  of  illumi- 
nation. 

I  have  not  dared  with  certainty  to  place  any  thing  in  the  other  de- 
partment but  election  and  regeneration.  The  formation  of  the  natural 
disposition  belongs  to  the  Creator:  the  changes  made  m  it  by  natural 
X  2 


246  A  MORAL  [PART  II., 

Besides  the  purely  sovereign  impressions  on  the 
mind,  (not  meaning  however  those  which  barely  illu- 
mine, nor  those  which  are  made  by  motives,)  I  know 
of  nothing  done  in  time  among  all  the  works  and  ways 
of  God  which  ought  to  be  excluded  from  a  moral  go- 
vernment, but  the  mere  operations  of  the  Creator  and 
Preserver;  nor  these  so  far  as  they  are  a  reward 
or  punishment  to  any,  or  are  primarily  intended  to  in- 
struct or  furnish  motives". 

causes,  except  so  far  as  they  are  a  reward  or  punishment,  seem  to  stand 
among  the  operations  of  the  Preserver.  If  the  convicting  influences  of 
rhe  Spirit  barely  convey  light  to  the  mind,  they  are  ascribable  to  the' 
Moral  Governour  ;  for  light  is'only  for  agents.  The  impressions,  other- 
wise than  sanctifying,  which  are  made  to  incline  men  to  particular  ac- 
tions, appear  to  be  produced  by  motives  addressed  to  an  existing  tem- 
per, and  so  far  belong  to  the  Moral  Governour.  If  besides  all  these, 
there  are  direct  impressions,  purely  sovereign,  before  or  after  regenera- 
tion, sanctifying  or  otherwise,  they  must  be  placed  in  the  department 
of  the  Sovereign  Emcient  Cause. 

*  Creatures  must  exist  before  they  can  be  governed,  and  they  must 
be  sustained  in  existence  in  order  to  continue  subjects  of  moral  dis- 
cipline. Their  mere  creation  and  support  therefore  do  not  belong  to  a 
moral  government,  except  so  far  as  these  are  a  reward  or  punishment  to 
-some.  The  creation  of  Isaac  and  Samuel,  though  to  themselves  no  part  of 
a  moral  government,  was  a  gracious  recompense  to  their  parents.  Men 
may  be  sustained  in  life  as  a  reward  or  punishment  to  themselves, 
(Exod.  20.  12.  Rom.  9.  22.)  or  as  a  punishment  or  reward  to  others,  or 
in  answer  to  their  prayers :  (Judg.  2.  3.  Mat.  9.  18,  25.)  and  they  may 
be  cut  off  as  a  punishment  to  themselves  or  others.  (2  Sam.  12.  14, 
Ps.  55.  23.) 

How  far  the  whole  visible  universe  and  the  operations  of  nature 
around  us,  viewed  in  relation  to  creatures  already  existing,  stand  con- 
nected with  a  moral  government,  is  a  more  difficult  question.  So  far  as 
any  of  these  things  are  a  reward  or  punishment,  or  are  primarily  in- 
tended to  instruct  or  furnish  motives,  they  belong  to  this  department. 
Thus  fruitful  seasons  are  either  a  reward,  (Deut.  28.  12.)  or  a  source 
af  instruction  and  motives.  (Acts  14.  17.)  Thus  the  briers  and  thorns 
are  a  punishment,  (Gen.  3.  18.)  and  the  tokens  of  God  in  heaven  and 
earth  are  a  warning.  (Ps.  65.  8.)  But  how  far  do  the  works  of  nature 
belong  to  a  moral  government  as  mere  sources  of  instruction  and  mo- 
rives?  We  must  not  include  every  thing  in  this  department  which  was 
intended  to  instruct  or  move  creatures  to  action,  for  then  we  must  ex- 


CHAP.  VIII.]  GOVERNMENT,.  247 

It  is  the  Moral  Governour  alone  who  is  approached 
by  creatures  ;  and  it  is  in  this  character  that  God  is 
respected  in  almost  all  those  efforts  of  creature  agency 
which  we  call  religion  and  virtue.  It  is  almost  solely 
in  this  character  that  he  is  the  object  of  love,  because 
it  is  almost  exclusively  in  this  that  his  moral  perfec- 
tions appear.  Faith  perhaps  is  still  more  limited. 
Besides  election,  and  the  first  and  second  creation,  and 
preservation,  it  has  no  other  object  than  the  Moral  Go- 
vernour with  his  provisions,  acts,  and  declarations. 
That  faith  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please 
God,  is  a  belief  "  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  Rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  him*."  Instead  of  busy- 
ing itself  with  the  question  whether  I  am  elected,  its 
proper  office  is  to  believe  that  God  will  be  to  me  "  a 
Rewarder"  if  I  diligently  seek  him.  All  the  exercises 
of  repentance  and  trust,  and  most  of  those  of  gratitude 
and  submission,   respect  God  in  the  same  character, 

elude  nothing.  All  that  God  has  ever  done  was  intended  to  enlighten 
creatures  and  to  subserve  a  government  by  motives,  But  instructions  and 
motives  subservient  to  the  government  of  a  family,  may  be  drawn  from, 
facts  which  constitute  no  part  of  family  government.  If  a  measure  has  no 
other  end  than  to  instruct  or  move,  like  some  things  contained  in  the  Bi- 
ble ;  or  in  case  it  has  another  end,if  that  end  applies  exclusively  to  agents, 
(like  the  divine  law,  which,  while  it  teaches  and  offers  inducements,  im- 
poses obligations ;)  then  it  properly  belongs  to  a  moral  government.  But 
if  its  primary  end  does  not  respect  agents  distinctively,  but  the  whole 
man,  (like  the  creation  of  him  and  a  world  for  him  to  dwell  in,)  or 
other  animals,  or  the  general  constitution  of  the  universe,  then,  though 
like  all  other  things  it  was  intended  to  furnish  instructions  and  motives, 
it  cannot  fall  within  this  department.  To  allude  again  to  domestic  go- 
vernment, it  is  one  thing  to  build  a  house  for  the  family  to  dwell  in  and 
receive  the  proper  discipline,  and  another  to  construct  a  house  in  minia- 
ture for  the  purpose  of  teaching  them  some  mechanical  principles. 
Now  we  dare  not  conclude  that  any  of  the  works  of  nature  are  held  up 
as  a  splendid  show,  a  dead  picture  to  exhibit  the  divine  perfections,  but 
rather  that  they  display  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  by  answering 
some  important  end.  This  end  is  to  decide  where  they  are  to  fall  in 
the  division  of  departments. 

*Heb.ll.6. 


248  A  MORAL  [PART  II. 

Obedience  has  no  other  object,  for  none  but  the  Moral 
Governour  commands*  With  him  our  business  lies 
through  the  whole  course  of  our  active  virtue.  In 
every  part  we  proceed  as  though  nothing  was  settled 
from  eternity,  and  except  a  submission  to  the  eternal 
purpose  of  God,  set  ourselves  to  raise  others  to  happi- 
ness as  though  we  never  heard  of  an  absolute  decree. 
We  transact  with  the  Moral  Governour  in  almost  all 
our  worship.  Prayer  has  no  other  object.  Its  concern 
lies  not  with  election,  but  with  the  present  will  of  him 
who  "  is  a  Rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him." 
Its  sole  encouragement  is  drawn  from  the  promise  of 
the  Moral  Governour;  and  a  long  pondering  on  elec- 
tion, by  turning  the  eye  from  him,  is  apt  to  damp  the 
spirit  and  discourage  the  effort.  When  we  pray  for 
the  regeneration  of  others,  we  do  not  ask  the  Elector 
to  change  his  eternal  decrees  :  we  address  ourselves  to 
the  Moral  Governour  alone,  and  hope  to  be  rewarded 
by  an  act  which  to  them  will  not  be  a  recompense. 

A  moral  government  wields  all  the  motives  in  the 
universe.  It  comprehends  the  entire  system  of  in- 
struction intended  for  creatures.  The  Bible  lies 
wholly  within  its  bounds.  It  comprehends  the  public 
dispensation  both  of  law  and  Gospel,  with  the  whole 
compages  of  precepts,  invitations,  promises  and  threat- 
enings.  It  comprehends  the  atonement,  and  all  the 
covenants  made  with  men,  and  all  the  institutions  of 
religion,  with  the  whole  train  of  means  and  privileges. 
It  comprehends  the  whole  doctrine  and  process  of  jus- 
tification, with  all  spiritual  influences  which  either  en- 
lighten or  reward.  It  comprehends  a  throne  of  grace, 
with  all  the  answers  to  prayer.  It  comprehends  a 
day  of  probation,  with  all  the  experiments  made  upon 
the  human  character.  It  comprehends  the  entire  sys- 
tem of  grace,  with  the  bare  exception  of  election  and 


CHAP.  IX.]  GOVERNMENT.  249 

regeneration.  It  comprehends  all  the  rewards  and 
punishments  of  the  present  life.  It  comprehends  the 
day  of  judgment,  and  all  the  retributions  of  eternity. 
It  comprehends  all  the  sensible  communion  between 
the  Infinite  and  finite  minds  ;  all  the  perceptible  inter- 
course between  God  and  his  rational  offspring  ;  all  the 
treatment  of  intelligent  creatures  viewed  otherwise 
than  as  passive  receivers  of  sovereign  impressions. 
In  short  it  is  the  public  government  of  God  over  the 
universe.  And  I  may  add,  it  forms  the  subject  matter 
of  nine-tenths,  perhaps  of  ninety-nine-hundredths  of 
the  Bible.  Almost  all  the  language  of  the  world  re- 
fers to  agents  and  belongs  to  the  dialect  of  a  moral 
government.  Surely  this  is  not  a  part  of  the  divine 
operations  to  be  buried  up  under  the  tapestry  of  se- 
cret decrees.  Surely  the  language  which  befits  this 
great  system  of  administration,  and  which  expresses 
its  vital  principles,  is  not  to  be  frittered  away  into 
figures  of  speech,  into  idioms  after  the  manner  of 
men,  or  laid  aside  for  a  dialect  supposed  to  be  better 
adapted  to  the  secret  counsels  of  the  Incomprehensi- 
ble Mind, 


CHAPTER  IX. 

MORAL  AGENTS  TREATED  AS  IF  THERE  WAS  NO  FORE- 
KNOWLEDGE. 

The  only  part  of  a  moral  government  which  disco- 
vers prescience,  is  prophecy.  All  the  other  parts  are 
framed  together  with  the  same  consistency  of  relation 
as  if  there  was  no  foreknowledge.  Break  up  this 
principle,  and  plant  the  eye  of  prescience  visibly  in 
every  part  of  a  moral  government,  and  you  turn  the 


250  FOREKNOWLEDGE  [PART  II. 

whole  into  confusion :  the  entreaties  of  God  to  the 
non-elect  would  appear  like  mockery,  and  many  of 
his  declarations  false.  God  proceeds  in  his  treatment 
of  moral  agents  as  though  it  was  perfectly  uncertain 
how  they  will  act  till  they  are  tried.  The  reason  is-, 
that  the  capacity  and  obligations  on  which  the  treat- 
ment is  founded,  are  in  no  degree  affected  by  fore- 
knowledge. This  neither  weakens  an  obligation,  nor 
helps  to  create  one  which  would  not  otherwise  exist. 
It  does  not  weaken  an  obligation,  and  therefore  does 
not  prevent  the  issuing  of  commands  and  invitations  ; 
for  these  only  express  the  obligations  of  men  with  pre- 
cision, without  any  thing  prophetic  as  to  their  conduct 
or  destiny.  Nor  yet  does  it  help  to  create  an  obliga- 
tion which  would  not  otherwise  exist.  To  this  maxim 
I  wish  to  draw  particular  attention.  Were  there  no 
foreknowledge,  neither  the  nature  of  things  nor  any 
command  could  impose  on  men  an  obligation  to  accept 
a  privilege  which  in  relation  to  them  had  no  existence, 
(for  that  would  be  a  natural  impossibility,)  nor,  unless 
deceived,  to  believe  the  privilege  tu  be  fur  them  in 
such  a  sense  that  they  could  enjoy  it  by  doing  their 
duty  ;  for  that  would  be  an  obligation  to  believe  a  lie. 
This  would  be  common  sense  if  there  was  no  fore- 
knowledge. Now  what  I  assert  is,  that  the  fore- 
knowledge  of  God  that  they  would  not  accept  the  pri- 
vilege if  provided  for  them,  did  not  render  it  proper 
for  him,  without  providing  it,  to  command  them  to  re- 
ceive it  and  to  believe  that  it  was  provided  for  them. 
They  could  not  be  under  obligation,  nor  could  any 
command  lay  them  under  obligation,  to  accept  a  pri- 
vilege which  in  relation  to  them  had  no  existence, 
nor,  unless  deceived,  to  believe  a  lie.  The  incon- 
sistency of  attempting  to  impose  such  an  obligation, 
will  appear  by  making  the  supposition,  (and  of  moral 
agents  we  have  a  right  to  make  the  supposition,)  that 


CHAP.  IX.]         ALTERS  NOTHING.  251 

they  should  exert  or  try  to  exert  their  agency  in  this 
way.  The  moment  they  should  make  the  attempt, 
they  would  find  one  part  a  natural  impossibility,  and 
in  performing  the  other,  unless  deceived,  they  would 
actually  do  wrong.  No  power  therefore  could  lay 
upon  them  an  obligation  to  accept  a  privilege  which, 
from  the  foreknowledge  that  they  would  reject  it,  had 
not  been  so  provided  for  them  that  they  could  enjoy  it 
by  doing  their  duty.  Accordingly  the  Moral  Govern- 
our  no  more  attempts  to  impose  the  obligation  without 
providing  the  privilege,  than  would  any  fair  and  ho- 
nourable man.  He  does  not  command  impossibilities, 
secure  in  the  foreknowledge  that  creatures  will  not 
obey,  and  then  punish  them  for  ever  for  not  doing 
what  no  power  with  the  best  dispositions  could  have 
done.  He  does  not  thus  tyke  advantage  of  his 
superior  knowledge  to  oppress.  He  does  not  thus 
practise  upon  the  ignorance  of  creatures,  sure  at  last 
to  detect  the  imposition. 

By  this  principle  let  us  test  the  correctness  of  a 
fashionable  similitude.  A  pearl,  sufficient  in  value 
to  redeem  a  thousand  prisoners,  is  offered  and  accept- 
ed for  a  hundred.  It  being  foreseen  that  none  J^ut  the 
hundred  will  accept  the  offer  of  release,  advantage  is 
taken  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  price  to  tender  liberty 
to  the  thousand  and  to  command  them  to  come  out. 
This  is  the  very  simile  chosen  by  some  on  the  other  side 
to  exhibit  the  strength  of  their  cause.  I  have  nothing 
to  do  here  with  the  propriety  of  the  offer,  my  business 
is  solely  with  the  justice  of  the  command.  According 
to  this  representation,  an  attempt  is  made  to  fasten 
upon  nine  hundred  prisoners  for  whom  no  ransom  has 
been  paid,  an  obligation  to  come  out  on  the  ground  of 
a  ransom  really  offered  for  others,  but  only  in  appear- 


252  FOREKNOWLEDGE  ALTERS  NOTHING.       [PART  II, 

ance  for  them*.  Now  in  this  case  it  is  not  true  that 
they  could  come  out  if  they  would  obey  the  command. 
The  reverse  is  true.  If  they  should  obey  they  would 
be  stopped.  And  when  they  are  told  that  they  can 
come  out  if  they  will  obey,  a  downright  falsehood  is 
imposed  upon  them,  under  security  that  they  will  not 
detect  the  imposition  by  making  the  attempt.  And  on 
this  falsehood  an  essay  is  made  to  found  an  obliga- 
tion,— an  obligation  to  do  a  natural  impossibility, — 
which  but  for  the  deception  practised  upon  them  they 
would  see  to  be  as  impracticable  as  to  make  a  world. 
The  sufficiency  of  the  price  in  this  case  is  only  a  cover 
to  conceal  the  imposture,  and  cannot  be  a  ground  of 
obligation.  It  cannot  even  seem  to  them  to  bear  the 
most  distant  relation  to  an  obligation,  but  by  a  palpa- 
ble delusion.  This  then  cannot  be  a  just  representa- 
tion of  that  provision  on  which  God  rests  the  general 
obligation  of  men  to  accept  the  atonement.  It  must 
be  true,  that,  just  as  the  provision  now  is,  and  not  as  it 
would  have  been  had  their  faith  been  foreseen,  they 
can  be  pardoned  in  consistency  with  the  honour  of 
the  law  if  they  will  believe ;  a  supposition  which  we 
have  none  the  less  right  to  make  of  agents  on  account 
of  the  foreknowledge  that  they  would  not  believe. 

Now  if  the  atonement  is  for  all  in  such  a  sense  that, 
just  as  it  now  is,  they  may  be  pardoned  by  it  if  they 
will  believe,  it  is  an  atonement  for  all  in  the  highest 
sense  in  which  it  can  be  for  moral  agents. 

*  The  confusion  here  arises  from  not  distinguishing  between  the 
nigher  ransom  and  the  atonement.  Because  the  former  was  not  paid 
for  all,  (that  is,  Christ  did  not  so  purchase  all  by  his  merit  that  he  could 
:laim  them  as  his  reicard,)  atonement  was  nounade  for  all. 


CHAP.  X.]   AGENTS  TREATED  CONDITIONALLY.      253 

CHAPTER  X. 

THORAL  AGENTS  TREATED  CONDITIONALLY. 

The  evidence  of  this  fact  is  found  in  the  conditions 
on  which  salvation  is  offered  on  every  page  of  the  Bi- 
ble, and  in  all  the  promises  and  threatenings  both  of 
law  and  Gospel.  Men  have  started  at  the  idea  of  con* 
ditions  under  a  dispensation  of  grace,  as  partaking  too 
much  of  a  legal  character :  but  when  the  nature  of  a 
condition  in  a  moral  government  is  explained,  it  will 
be  found  to  be  an  essential  ingredient  in  all  that  treat- 
ment of  moral  agents  which  is  accompanied  with  au- 
thority. Where  the  holy  agency  of  creatures  is  a  ne- 
c  essary  antecedent  to  the  enjoyment  of  any  good,  the 
Moral  Governour  states  the  fact.  The  statement  of 
that  fact,  accompanied  with  the  authority  with  which 
he  cannot  but  require  the  holy  action,  is  all  that  is 
meant  by  a  condition  in  a  moral  government.  A  con- 
dition is  only  that  fact  stated  with  authority.  You 
cannot  therefore  separate  conditions  from  the  authori- 
tative treatment  of  agents,  so  long  as  their  holiness  is 
essential  to  their  happiness,  and  so  long  as  God  in  an}' 
way  pronounces  that  fact.  It  is  only  because  men  are 
contemplated  purelyas  passive  that  conditions  are  ex- 
cluded ;  and  in  that  view  they  are  consistently  exclu- 
ded, for  they  belong  only  to  the  treatment  of  moral 
agents.  Nor  are  conditions  inconsistent  with  free 
grace,  unless  the  requirement  of  holiness  as  essential 
to  happiness  is  inconsistent  with  free  grace.  Nor  yet 
do  conditions  imply  any  thing  incompatible  with  abso- 
lute promises.  They  are  used,  we  shall  see,  in  the 
treatment  of  believers  who  are  already  embraced  by 
an  absolute  covenant,  and  even  after  they  have  attain= 

Y 


254  AGENTS  TREATED  [PART  U. 

ed  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope,  nay  after  they  have 
reached  their  eternal  home. 

In  those  measures  of  a  moral  government  which  are 
accompanied  with  no  authority,  conditions  of  course 
do  not  appear ;  for  instance,  in  those  sovereign  gifts 
which  are  suited  to  a  state  of  probation.  In  these 
God  appears  not  the  Lawgiver,  but  the  merciful  and 
long  suffering  Saviour,  who  is  willing  to  afford  men  the 
best  opportunity  to  prepare  for  their  last  account,  to 
grant  them  a  state  of  tranquillity  suited  to  reflection, 
and  to  encourage  their  faith  with  abundant  tokens  of 
his  mercy. 

The  only  case  connected  with  authority  in  which 
consequences  are  not  suspended  on  conditions,  is 
where  absolute  good  is  secured  as  a  reward  for  condi- 
tions already  fulfilled.  Thus  all  the  absolute  promises 
and  irrevocable  grants  made  to  the  Church  and  its  in- 
dividual members,  in  relation  to  themselves  or  their 
seed,  are  gracious  rewards  for  acts  already  done,  or  a 
character  already  formed. 

But  the  authoritative  treatment  of  pure  agents,  (or 
agents  considered  without  reference  to  the  Spirit,)  is 
never  absolute.  These  irrevocable  grants  respec' 
men  in  the  double  character  of  agents  and  passive  re- 
ceivers of  sanctifying  impressions.  To  the  agents  they 
are  a  reward,  but  they  are  to  be  executed  by  sanctify- 
ing impressions  on  the  passive  :  and  the  very  promise 
implies  a  security  of  spiritual  aid,  for  no  such  grants 
are  made  to  men  viewed  as  apostates.  In  like  manner 
the  absolute  promises  respecting  the  seed  imply  that 
they  shall  be  sanctified.  But  whatever  promises  are 
made  to  men,  or  to  their  parents  concerning  them,  with 
a  special  reference  to  their  passive  character,  yet  when 
these  same  persons  come  to  be  directly  dealt  with  as 
pure  agents,  the  issue  is  still  suspended  on  their  own 


CHAP.  X.J  CONDITIONALLY.  255 

conduct.  Thus  the  promises  to  Abraham  that  his  seed 
should  possess  the  land  of  Canaan  and  all  the  bless- 
ings of  the  Church,  were  absolute*  ;  and  yet  the  whole 
issue  was  suspended  on  their  own  conductt.  And  the 
way  in  which  these  two  things  are  reconciled  is,  their 
holy  character  was  securedj.  Thus  also  the  promise 
10  David  that  his  seed  should  possess  the  throne  of  Is- 
rael, was  absolute§ ;  and  yet  th«  privilege  was  sus- 
pended on  their  obedience||.  In  like  manner  the  pro- 
mises to  Christ  respecting  the  elect  were  absolute,  as 
are  also  the  promises  to  believers  as  recipients  of  the 
Spirit ;  and  yet  when  the  elect  and  even  believers  come 
to  be  treated  as  pure  agents,  the  issue  is  still  suspended 
on  their  own  conduct.  And  this  is  sometimes  done  by 
lips  which  at  the  same  moment  are  speaking  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  the  general  consequences  of 
Christ's  death,  and  its  express  acceptance  for  our  jus- 
tification. Thus  a  moral  government,  in  dealing  with 
pure  agents,  is  so  regardless  of  the  decrees,  and  pro- 
mises, and  influences  which  respect  the  passive,  that 
it  goes  around  them,  and  wanders  over  them,  without 
appearing  to  see  them.  Take  the  following  specimens. 
"  It  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone  that"  faith  "  was 
imputed  to  him"  for  righteousness  ;  "  but  for  us  also, 
[certainly  including  millions  of  the  elect  and  even  of 


»  Gen.  12.  7.  8c  13.  14—17.  8c  17.  7,  8.  &  28,  4, 13—15.  &  48.  4.  &  50. 
24.  Exod.  2.  24.  8c  6.  3—8.  8c  12.  25.  Deut.  4.  37.  &  10.  15.  &  12.  20. 
ic  26.  18,   19.    Josh.  21.  43—45.  8c  22.  4.  &  23.  5,  10.    Ps.  105.  6—45. 

1  Exod.  23.  20,  22.  Lev.  20.  22.  8c  26.  41,  42.  Num.   14.  30,  34. 

Deut.  1,8.  8c  4.  1,25— 31,  40.  8c  5.  16,33.  &  6.  3,  15, 18.  &  7.  7—15, 
&3.  1.  &11.  9,  21.  and  12.  28.  and  13.  17.  and  19.  8,9.  and 28.  11. 
and  30.  16,20.  and  32.  47.   2  Chron.  33.  8.    Jer.   11.  4,  5.  and  35. 

15.  Zech.   11.    10. X  Gen-  18>  18>19- $  2  Sam.   7.    12—16, 

2  Chron.  13.  5.    Ps.  89.   3,  4,  28—37. j|  1  Kin.  2.  3,4.  and  3. 

14.  and  8.  25,  26.  and  9.  1—9.  1  Chron.  22.  9—13.  and  28.  7, 
2  Chron.  7.  17—22.  Ps.  132,  12..  Jer.  17,  25. 


25G  AGENTS  TREATED  [PART  II. 

believers,]  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed  if  we  believe 
in  him  who  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead  ; 
who  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was  raised 
again  for  our  justification."  "  In  whom  we  have  re* 
demption  through  his  blood. — And  he  is  the  Head  of 
the  body,  the  Church. — For  it  pleased  the  Father  that 
in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell,  and,  (having  made 
peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,)  by  him  to  recon- 
cile all  things  unto  himself;  by  him,  I  say,  whether 
they  be  things  in  earth  or  things  in  heaven.  And  you 
that  were  sometime  alienated  and  enemies  in  your 
mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled  in 
the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  present  you 
holy,  and  unblamable,  and  unreprovable  in  his  sight, 
if  ye  continue  in  the  faith."  "  If  that  which  ye 
have  heard  from  the  beginning  shall  remain  in  you,  yc 
also  shall  continue  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Father." 
"  It  is  impossible  for  those  who  were  once  enlightened, 
- — if  they  shall  fall  away,  to  renew  them  again  unto 
repentance. — But  beloved,  we  are  persuaded  better 
things  of  you,  and  things  that  accompany  salvation, 
though  we  thus  speak.  For  God  is  not  unrighteous  to 
forget  your  work  and  labour  of  love. — Let  us  hold  fast 
the  profession  of  our  faith  without  wavering. — For  if 
we  sin  wilfully  after  that  we  have  received  the  know- 
ledge of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice 
for  sins. — If  any  man  draw  back  my  soul  shall  have  no 
pleasure  in  him.  But  we  are  not  of  them  who  draw 
back  unto  perdition,  but  of  them  that  believe  to  the 
saving  of  the  soul*." 

Even  after  believers  are  assured  that  their  present 
character  is  holy,  and  that  as  recipients  they  shall 
continue  to  receive  effectual  aid,  as  agents  they  are 

*  Rom.  4.  23— 25.    Cot:  1.  14—23.  Hcb.  G.  4>— 11.  and  10.  23— 
39.   1  John  2.  24. 


CHAP,  X.]  CONDITIONALLY.  25? 

still  treated  conditionally.  Paul  himself,  with  all  his 
confidence,  was  still  taught  to  suspend  his  salvation  on 
his  own  persevering  holiness.  "  I  keep  under  my 
body  and  bring  it  into  subjection,  lest  that  by  any 
means  when  I  have  preached  to  others  I  myself  should 
be  a  cast-away*.'5  The  principle  of  employing  threats 
to  stimulate  agents  to  the  attainment  of  a  good  already 
pronounced  certain,  is  exemplified  in  an  occurrence 
which  took  place  in  this  same  apostle's  voyage  to 
Rome.  He  had  declared  by  revelation  that  there 
should  "be  no  loss  of  any  man's  life."  And  yet 
when  the  sailors  were  about  clandestinely  to  leave  the 
ship,  he  disclosed  their  purpose  and  affirmed,  "  Except 
these  abide  in  the  ship  ye  cannot  be  savedt." 

Though  a  distinct  annunciation  of  threats  is  fitted 
only  to  a  state  of  probation,  yet  an  authoritative  con., 
necting  of  holiness  and  happiness  must  remain  while 
creatures  continue  under  government.  Even  the  pe- 
nalty of  the  law  must  continue  to  furnish  motives. 
Christ  did  not  die  to  support  a  penalty  of  transient 
importance,  and  which  after  a  few  years  should  cease  to 
have  any  influence  upon  agents.  He  did  not  die  to  se- 
parate the  penalty  from  the  law  after  probation  should 
end,  and  thus  annihilate  the  vigour  of  a  moral  govern- 
ment to  eternity.  Paul  is  still  under  the  empire  of 
law,  and  a  law  of  course  which  is  supported  by  a  pe- 
nalty ;  a  penalty  which  instead  of  being  annihilated  at 
Calvary,  continually  drawls  new  strength  from  the  tra- 
gedy there  displayed.  At  the  same  time  that  as  a  reci- 
pient he  hears  the  covenant  say  that  his  sanctification 
shall  be  perpetuated,  as  ah  agent  he  hears  the  law  say, 
not  only  that  he  shall  die  for  past  transgressions,  but 
ihat  he  shall  die  for  every  one  which  he  may  hereafter 

*  1  Cor.  9,  27, +  Acts  27.  22—31 

Y  2 


^53  AGENTS  TREATEB  [PART  II. 

commit.  And  though  he  is  not  under  law  as  a  cove- 
riant  of  works,  and  would  be  pardoned  by  grace,  (as 
after  he  was  united  to  Christ  on  earth,)  even  should  he 
commit  many  sins,  yet  the  mediation  of  Christ  never 
provided  that  a  slave  of  sin  should  be  taken  out  of  the 
hands  of  law.  Should  Paul  apostatize  to  complete 
and  continued  rebellion,  (which  as  an  agent  he  is  capa- 
ble of  doing,)  the  law  would  still  take  its  course  upon 
him.  And  if  his  continued  holiness  is  thus  necessary 
to  his  continued  happiness,  and  that  fact  is  in  any  way 
pronounced  by  the  same  authority  that  requires  his 
holiness,  (and  without  that  fact  lurking  more  or  less 
visibly  behind  the  command  there  is  no  authority,) 
then  he  hears  the  divine  authority,  (the  same  that  once 
spoke  in  the  Gospel,)  say,  that  if  he  returns  to  con- 
firmed rebellion  he  shall  be  delivered  over  to  the  law, 
and  be  punished  moreover  as  a  Gospel  despiser.  But 
how,  you  ask,  can  such  a  motive  influence  Paul  when 
he  knows  that  he  shall  be  kept  from  falling  ?  A  man 
is  held  from  throwing  himself  from  the  top  of  a  build- 
ing, and  knows  he  shall  be  held.  He  knows  also  that 
if  he  should  throw  himself  down  he  would  be  dashed 
in  piece*.  The  knowledge  of  the  latter  fact  prevents 
him  from  being  willing  to  take  the  leap.  While  Paul 
is  held  from  falling  by  an  influence  on  him  as  passive, 
and  knows  that  he  shall  be  held,  he  needs  motives  as 
an  agent  to  make  him  willing  to  stand.  He  could  not 
be  willing  without  motives,  whatever  divine  power 
should  be  exerted  upon  him.  Why  then,  you  ask,  is 
not  Paul  still  on  probation,  as  much  at  least  as  after  he 
had  attained  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope  on  earth  ? 
Because  he  is  openly  confirmed  in  holiness  and  happi- 
ness by  way  of  reward.  When  the  agent  is  thus  pub- 
licly rewarded  by  confirmation,  the  agent  is  no  longer 
on  probation.     An  assured  hope  of  that  reward  was 


CHAP.  X.]  CONDITIONALLY.    .    %  259 

not  the  possession.  This  it  is,  and  not  the  absence  of 
conditions,  which  distinguishes  heaven  from  a  state  of 
probation*. 

This  mode  of  treating  pure  agents,  notwithstanding 
the  absolute  promises  which  respect  the  same  crea- 
tures in  the  double  character  of  agents  and  recipients, 
rests  on  the  three  following  reasons. 

(1.)  There  is  nothing  in  their  dependance  nor  in 
the  promised  influence  to  prevent  them  from  being,  in 
respect  to  the  very  thing  to  which  they  are  to  be  in- 
clined, complete  agents,  with  all  the  obligations  of 
agents,  and  with  an  unbroken  relation  to  the  authority 
and  claims  of  the  Moral  Governour.  Of  course  it  is 
proper  for  him  to  treat  them  as  agents,  with  no  more 
reference  to  the  promised  influence  than  he  has  to 
election  in  his  commands  to  the  wicked ;  and  to  re- 
quire their  duty  in  the  tone  of  a  lawgiver,  who  as  such 
must  always  appear  with  a  penalty  in  his  hand. 

(2.)  There  is  nothing  in  the  promised  influence  to 
weaken  the  indissoluble  connexion  between  their  holy 
action  and  the  salvation  contemplated.  The  promise 
did  not  engage  to  dispense  with  that  action,  but  to 
secure  it.  The  connexion  between  the  action  and  the 
salvation  is  as  close  as  though  the  stipulation  had  not 
been  made,  and  may  be  pointed  out  and  insisted  on 
without  contradicting  the  promise.  Two  things  are 
true  of  them  :  as  passive   they  will  receive  effectual 

*  This  shows  that  the  threats  held  out  in  the  Bible  against  apostacy, 
are  no  evidence  against  the  perseverance  of  the  saints.  They  are  ra- 
ther the  means  by  which  the  perseverance  of  holy  agents  is  secured*. 
It  shows  also  that  the  conditional  treatment  of  believers  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  completeness  of  their  justification.  The  irrevoca- 
ble title  to  life  made  over  in  their  justification,  comprehended,  and 
secured  to  them  a.s  recipients,  their  continued  sanctification ;  but  still 
as  pure  agents  they  might  continue  to  be  treated  conditionally.  I  will 
add,  that  the  new  relation  is  not  the  less  real  or  complete  for  not  being 
certainly  known  to  the  subject. 


260  AGENTS  TREATED  [PART  If. 

aid ;  as  agents  they  must  continue  in  holiness  or  die. 
The  latter  proposition  authoritatively  pronounced, 
amounts  to  all  that  is  contained  in  a  divine  threat. 
The  way  then  is  open,  as  though  the  promise  did  not 
exist,  for  the  Moral  Governour  to  display  the  infran- 
gible connexion  between  their  holiness  and  happiness 
with  all  the  authority  and  claim  attached  to  his  office* 
(3.)  While  as  recipients  they  stand  related  to  an  ab- 
solute promise,  as  agents  they  must  still  be  carried 
along  by  motives.  Moral  agents  cannot  act  without 
motives  whatever  exertion  of  sanctifying  power  is 
made.  This  exercise  of  authority  furnishes  the  very 
motives  required.  While  probation  lasts,  a  form  of 
more  distinct  menace  is  used,  as  better  calculated  to 
influence  the  Church  at  large.  It  proclaims  the  ne- 
cessity of  persevering  holiness  in  tones  of  awful  ma- 
jesty and  terrour ;  and  these,  coming  to  the  ears  of 
multitudes  who  are  still  in  doubt  about  their  salvation, 
are  calculated  to  stimulate  them  to  exertion  as  the  only 
means  of  making  their  calling:  and  election  sure.  Nor 
is  this  form  lost  upon  those  who  at  present  possess  the 
full  assurance  of  hope,  for  it  stands  ready  to  rouse 
them  to  action  whenever  their  graces  languish  and 
their  hopes  of  course  decline. 

Thus  it  appears  that  neither  the  covenant  with 
Christ  nor  the  absolute  promises  to  believers  prevent 
their  salvation  from  still  being  suspended  on  their 
own  conduct;  that  neither  election  nor  oaths  break 
up  that  conditionality  which  pervades  every  part  of 
the  treatment  of  pure  agents.  It  ought  not  therefore 
to  seem  strange  if  notwithstanding  all  the  absolute  de- 
crees and  covenants  connected  with  the  work  of  re- 
demption, that  provision  for  agents  which  we  call  the 
atonement  should  be  found  to  be  conditional.  It  must 
fall  under  this  fundamental  law  of  a  moral  government. 


GHAP.   X.j  CONDITIONALLY.  2GJ 

For  in  the  first  place,  the  holy  action  of  men  towards 
it  was  necessary  to  their  enjoyment  of  its  benefit. 
They  could  not  be  pardoned  by  it  till  as  agents  they 
had  believed.  In  the  second  place,  from  the  moment 
it  met  the  eyes  of  men,  (and  the  whole  provision  was 
made  in  public,)  it  was  encircled  on  all  sides  with 
authority,  peremptorily  demanding  their  faith.  Here 
then  are  the  two  circumstances  which  call  forth  a  con- 
dition in  all  other  cases.  It  was  a  matter  connected 
with  authority,  and  the  enjoyment  of  it  did  depend  on 
the  very  faith  which  was  demanded.  Only  one  thing 
more  was  necessary.  Did  God  state  the  latter  fact  ? 
If  he  did,  you  have  all  that  goes  into  the  definition  of 
a  condition  in  a  moral  government.  Then  in  produ- 
cing the  atonement  before  the  world,  he  authoritatively 
pronounced  that  the  enjoyment  of  it  depended  on  the 
faith  of  men.  And  there  is  the  condition  on  the  very 
face  of  the  express  purpose. 

If  the  atonement  was  offered  for  agents,  (and  none 
else  needed  expiation  or  satisfaction,  and  none  else 
could  receive  pardon,)  then  it  was  a  provision  to  be- 
nefit them  upon  their  acting  the  part  of  agents  towards 
it,  or  else  the  essential  attributes  of  agents  are  divi- 
ded. If  the  effect  was  not  suspended  on  that  effort  of 
their  agency,  it  was  not  made  for  agents,  (for  creatures 
capable  of  acting,  and  on  whose  action  their  happi- 
ness depends.)  but  for  the  purely  passivet  for  men  in 
a  character  in  which  they  had  not  sinned. 

After  the  atonement  was  accepted,  God  was  bound 
either  to  pardon  believers  as  believers,  or  the  elect  as 
elect.  And  if  you  can  tell  which,  you  can  tell  for 
which  description  it  was  accepted,  and  of  course  for 
which  it  was  offered.  If  God  did  not  engage  to  par- 
don any  by  the  atonement  till  as  agents  they  had  be- 
lieved, then  it  was  never  offered  or  accepted  with  any 


262-  .AGENTS  TREATED  [PART  I*. 

intention  that  it  should  benefit  men  as  mere  elect,  but 
only  those  who  should  believe.  That  act  is  as  much 
their  own.  and  as  essential  to  the  benefit,  and  as  authori- 
tatively pronounced  to  be  so,  as  though  there  was  no 
Spirit.     And  this  is  the  full  definition  of  a  condition. 

In  settling  the  extent  of  the  atonement  in  this  light, 
the  only  question  is,  was  the  benefit  suspended  on  the 
faith  of  a  particular  number  of  men,  or  was  it  plainly 
declared  that  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish"  ?     The  question  is  answered. 

When  our  brethren  oppose  the  idea  of  conditions, 
they  have  a  very  different  matter  in  their  eye.  Their 
question  is  about  the  secret  purpose  of  the  divine 
mind,  and  how  many,  as  the  reward  of  his  merit, 
Christ  obtained  a  right  to  rescue  from  sin  and  death 
by  an  operation  on  them  as  passive.  And  therefore 
they  ask,  not  about  the  atonement,  but  about  the  end 
©f  his  death  as  a  whole.  And  when  they  have  limited 
the  question  to  the  secret  purpose  of  the  Divine  Per- 
sons, they  find  the  omniscience  of  God  arrayed  against 
conditions.  "  To  die  conditionally  for  a  person,  is  a 
strange  mode  of  speaking,  especially  as  it  relates  to 
One  who  is  omniscient."  \ivur  question  had  been  be- 
fore the  writer,  he  would  not  have  employed  such  an 
argument  as  this.  For  who  will  say  that  conditions 
are  excluded  from  a  government  over  moral  agents, 
though  exercised  by  an  omniscient  God  ?  The  mean- 
ing of  the  writer  comes  out  more  fully.  "  It  will  be 
pretended  that  Christ  died  for  all,  but  suspended  the 
benefit  of  his  death  upon  a  condition.  Be  it  so.  Then 
when  Christ  died  he  knew  whether  that  condition 
would  ever  lake  place,  or  rather  he  knew  that  it  never 
would  in  those  to  whom  he  had  determined  not  to  give 
faim.     And  to  say  that  a  person  docs  a  thing  to  take 


chap.  x.J  Conditionally.  263 

effect  on  a  certain  condition  which  he  is  sure  will 
never  occur,  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  he  does  a 
thing  without  any  view  to  that  effect  "  Plainly  fas- 
tening the  attention  to  the  secret  purpose  of  Christ. 
But  who,  except  an  Anninian,  ever  thought  that  the 
secret  purpose  of  Christ  about  the  application  of  his 
death  by  regeneration,  was  conditional  ?  The  limita- 
tion of  the  writer's  meaning  to  the  secret  purpose  is 
still  more  obvious.  "  If  he  died  for  them  only  on 
some  condition,  then  if  that  condition  never  takes 
place  he  did  not  die  for  them."  That  is,  if  he  never 
imparts  faith  to  them  as  recipients,  he  did  not  die  with 
any  intention  to  make  them  partakers  of  his  atonement 
by  such  an  operation.  And  no  one  says  he  did.  We 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  secret  purpose  of  Christ 
about  an  operation  on  passive  recipients.  We  are 
only  inquiring  about  a  provision  for  moral  agents,  and 
whether  in  the  declared  purpose  for  which  it  was  pub- 
licly brought  forward,  their  faith  was  not  demanded  as 
a  necessary  antecedent  to  its  application,  and  whether 
it  was  not  pronounced  applicable  to  all  indiscrimi- 
nately w7ho  would  believe. 

But  no  account  is  made  of  all  this  through  the  con- 
stant confounding  of  expiation  with  the  claim  of  merit. 
"  They,  [the  Scriptures,]  require  indeed  faith  as  an 
instrument  of  receiving  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  : 
but  that  very  faith  is  the  effect  of  Christ's  meritorious 
death  and  prevalent  intercession,  and  is  of  course  be- 
stowed on  all  those  for  whom  he  shed  his  precious 
blood."  "  The  death  of  Christ,  considered  in  unison 
with  his  obedience,  is  the  meritorious  cause  of  all  spi- 
ritual blessings.  It  is  therefore  the  eause  of  the  gift 
of  faith.  Those  therefore  for  whom  Christ  has  died, 
will  sooner  or  later,  in  consequence  of  that  offering,  be 
made  partakers  of  faith,  with  which   all  spiritual  fcles- 


264  AGENTS  TREATEB  [PART  II. 

sings  are  connected."  All  this  is  true  of  the  higher 
ransom,  or  the  united  influence  of  expiation  and  merit : 
but  the  atonement  had  no  concern  with  securing  the 
gift  of  faith. 

And  yet  because  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  higher 
ransom  as  absolute,  it  is  insisted  that  the  atonement 
itself  was  not  conditional.  "  It  is  no  where  said  [in 
the  Bible]  that  Christ  died  to  render  it  possible  for 
God  to  receive  sinners  on  such  terms  as  he  might 
choose  to  appoint."  Where  then  is  that  passage 
found  which  says,  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believe th 
in  him  should  not  perish"  ? 

The  same  confusion  between  the  higher  and  lower 
ransom  leads  to  such  as  this :  "It  is  an  unworthy 
thought  of  the  Almighty  Saviour  that  he  should  per- 
mit Satan  to  triumph  over  millions  of  those  whom  he 
purchased  with  his  own  blood."  If  this  is  said  of  the 
higher  ransom,  I  agree;  but  if  it  is  said  of  the  lower 
ransom  or  atonement,  the  apestle  Peter  thought 
not  so;  for  he  expressly  tells  us  of  those  "  who  privily 
shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the 
Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bring  upon  themselves 
swift  destruction*." 

It  is  only  of  the  higher  ransom  that  the  following 
assertion  is  true.  "  If — Christ  has  laid  down  his  life 
and  shed  his  blood  for  the  redemption  of  any  of  our 
race,  and  if  God  as  the  universal  Governour  has  ac- 
cepted the  ransom  in  their  behalf,  it  cannot  be  other- 
wise but  that  it  will  have  the  effect  of  obtaining,  soon- 
er or  later,  their  actual  redemption."  This  is  true  ol 
that  ransom  whose  absolute  and  unfailing  influence 
lies  in  the  claim  of  merit  to  a  reward.  And  yet  the 
same  affirmation  is  undistinguishingly  extended  to  the 

*  2  Pet.  2.  I; 


CHAP.  X.]  CONDITIONALLY.  26$ 

expiation  and  satisfaction.     "  If  they,  [our  sins,]  are 
really  expiated,  they  never  can  rise  in  judgment  against 
us."     "  It  will  be  said  that  this  satisfaction  screens 
from  punishment  those  only  to  whom  it  is  applied. 
But  I  answer,  if  really  made  for  any  individuals,  it  will 
be  applied  to  their  benefit.1'     This  is   a  specimen  of 
the  whole  reasoning.     Because  merit  secured  to  Christ 
the  regeneration  and  pardon  of  the  elect  as  his  re- 
ward, expiation  and  satisfaction  must  be  equally  ab- 
solute.    But  where  is  the  proof  of  this  ?     It  is  easy  to 
construct  popular  arguments  founded  on   inapplicable 
analogies  ;  but  we  want  some  tangible  proof  that  for  a 
certain  number  of  moral  agents  expiation  and  satisfac- 
tion were  made  absolutely,  that  is,  without  respect  to 
their  character  ;  and  we  must  have  proof  as  strong  as 
the  oath  of  God,  before  we  can  set  aside  a  thousand 
texts  to  the  contrary. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  atonement  was  offered  for  the 
elect  absolutely,  yet  not  carrying  with  it  this  implica- 
tion, be  their  character  what  it  may,  because  the  cha- 
racter itself  was  secured.  But  what  secured  it  ?  Not 
the  atonement.  That  provision  for  moral  agents  was 
a  world  by  itself,  and  in  its  arrangements  and  form 
took  no  notice  of  such  an  impression  to  be  made  upon 
passive  subjects. 

In  the  same  spirit  it  is  alleged  that  the  atonement 
was  made  absolutely  for  the  elect  viewed  as  believers. 
In  answer  to  the  objection,  "  If  Christ  died  not  for 
me  I  cannot  be  saved  because  there  is  no  atonement 
for  me,"  it  is  said,  i:  The  cause  of  your  perishing  is 
your  own  unbe.lief :  for  if  you  had  been  viewed  as  a 
believer  when  the  atonement  was  made,  you  would  have 
been  included."  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  ?  Was 
faith  foreseen  as  anterior  in  the  order  of  nature  to  the 
atonement  itself?   and  was  this  the  reason  that  expia- 

Z 


266  ASENTS   TREATE1>  [PART  II. 

tion  was  made  for  the  elect  ?  And  were  the  non-elect 
excluded  from  the  provision  because  of  their  unbelief, 
when  it  is  said  in  the  same  paper  that  all  the  faith  in 
the  world  was  obtained  by  the  death  of  Christ  ? 

The  atonement  made  for  the  elect  absolutely  as  be- 
lievers !  I  admit  that  the  merit  of  Christ  absolutely 
procured  for  them  the  gift  of  faith  ;  yet  not  for  them  as 
believers  but  as  unbelievers.  And  how,  before  a  man 
has  faith,  a  thing  can  be  done  for  him  as  a  believer, 
and  yet  be  done  for  him  absolutely,  is  hard  to  tell. 
If  the  influence  of  the  thing  is  to  secure  his  faith, 
it  is  for  him  not  as  a  believer  but  as  an  unbeliever*. 
If  the  influence  of  the  thing  does  not  secure  his  faith, 
and  yet  was  done  to  benefit  him  only  as  a  believer,  it 
suspended  the  effect  on  his  own  act  as  certainly  as 
faith  is  an  act  of  his  own.  No  matter  how  sure  that 
act  was  made  by  another  influence,  yet  if  he  cannot 
enjoy  the  benefit  without  performing  a  duty,  the  en- 
joyment is  suspended  on  his  performing  a  duty.  If 
men  have  any  agency  in  believing,  to  say  that  the 
atonement  was  made  for  them  absolutely  as  believers, 
is  to  say  that  it  was  made  for  them  absolutely  on  the 
condition  of  their  faith.  This  manner  of  viewing 
things  entirely  overlooks  the  agency  of  man,  and 
makes  him  as  passive  in  believing  as  in  the  com- 
plexion he  wears.  Before  one  is  born  a  provision 
ma\  be  made  for  him  as  a  zohite  man  and  yet  be  abso- 
lute, because  he  has  no  part  to  act  in  forming  his  own 
complexion  :  not  so  for  a  good  man,  if  that  goodness 
implies  any  agency  of  his  own.  This  is  the  grand 
mistake  which  runs  through  the  system.  They  every 
where  sink  the  agency  of  man  in  the  mere  receiver,  and 
reason  about  him  as  though  he  was  a  passive  tablet. 

*  The  atonement  therefore  could  not  secure  the  gift  of  faith  unles? 
it  was  offered  for  unbeherers. 


^HAP.  X.]  CONDITIONALLY.  267 

Thus  this  concession  that  the  elect  were  included  in 
the  provision  as  believers,  and  that  the  non-elect  were 
excluded  only  for  the  want  of  faith,  is  really  giving  up 
the  point.  For  then  the  latter  would  still  be  included 
if  they  would  believe.  And  that  is  all  the  provision 
we  plead  for.  No,  you  say,  it  is  now  too  late:  from 
their  foreseen  unbelief  the  pearl  w7as  not  offered  for 
them.  The  question  then  comes  to  this,  did  the  atone- 
ment render  those  pardonable  indiscriminately  who 
would  believe,  or  only  those  who  it  was  foreseen  would 
believe  ? 

It  must  never  be  lost  sight  of  that  the  satisfaction 
was  in  no  sense  or  degree  made  in  secret.  We  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  hidden  purpose  of  the  divine 
mind,  or  any  private  covenant  between  the  Sacred 
Persons.  The  whole  question  turns  on  the  construc- 
tion to  be  put  upon  the  public  instrument.  If  in  those 
open  transactions  and  explanations  which  constituted 
the  whole  atonement,  and  laid  before  the  world  the  ex- 
press purpose,  it  was  given  out  that  it  was  offered  for 
those  who  should  receive  faith,  then  it  was  offered  ab- 
solutely for  the  elect  and  the  elect  alone.  But  if  it 
was  declared  to  be  offered  for  the  benefit  of  all  indis- 
criminately who  would  exercise  faith,  then  it  was  a  pro- 
vision for  a  whole  world  of  agents,  and  its  application 
was  suspended  on  a  condition. 

This  was  manifestly  the  fact.  "  To  him  give  all  the 
prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 
"  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay- 
down  his  life  for  his  friends.  Ye  are  my  friends  if  ye 
do  whatsoever  I  command  you."  I  die  a  Substitute  for 
you,  Peter  and  John,  if  ye  obey  me.  "  This  is  the 
will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the 
Son  and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life*"7 


■'268  CONFUSION  [part  II. 

"  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every 
one  that  believeth.15  "  Even  the  righteousness  of  God 
■which  is  by  faith,  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all 
them  that  believe  ;  for  there  is  no  difference,  for  all 
have  sinnedV 

Now  if  the  atonement  was  thus  conditional  as  to  its 
application,  it  could  not  as  a  provision  be  limited  to  a 
part,  unless  the  condition  wTas  to  some  a  natural  impos- 
sibility. For  then  it  could  have  no  other  effect  on 
Paul  than  to  secure  his  pardon  when  he  should  believe, 
and  it  must  secure  to  all  a  pardon  in  case  they  woidd  be- 
lieve. Here  then,  (allowing  faith  not  to  be  a  natural 
impossibility,)  is  a  provision  for  all  as  capable  agents, 
and  such  a  provision  as  gives  them  all  a  fair  chance* 
It  wrould  be  different  if  they  were  passive  blocks. 
Here  is  a  feast  for  all  who  are  found  in  a  certain 
house.  The  whole  multitude  without  are  able  to  enter 
if  so  disposed.  There  is  then  a  provision  for  all  in 
such  a  sense  as  to  give  them  all  a  fair*  chance.  It 
would  be  different  if  they  were  chained  to  the  earth. 
So  a  bounty  given  to  a  seminary  to  be  divided  among 
the  scholars  who  prove  diligent,  is  by  the  very  circum- 
stance of  its  conditionally  a  provision  for  the  whole 
school  as  capable  agents. 


CHAPTER  XT. 

BELIEVER  AND  UNBELIEVER  CONFOUNDED  WITH  ELECT 
AND  NON-ELECT,  AND  WITH  MAN  AS  A  CAPABLE 
AGENT. 

When   wc  say  that  the  atonement  was   for  Simon 
Magus,  we  mean  that  it  was  a  provision  for  him  as  a 

*  John  6.  40.  &  15.  13,  14.     Acts  10.  43.     Rom.  3.  22,  23.  and  10.  4. 


CHAP.  XI.]  OF  NAMES.  269 

capable  agent.  But  when  our  brethren  deny  that  it 
was  for  him,  they  constantly  allude  to  the  secret  pur- 
pose of  God  about  its  application.  And  from  fasten- 
ing their  eye  thus  on  the  secret  purpose,  which  re- 
spected passive  receivers  of  regenerating  influence, 
they  have  in  a  great  measure  lost  sight  of  man  as  a  ca- 
pable agent,  and  reasoned  about  him  as  though  he  had 
nothing  to  do  with  exercising  faith,  but  only  with  re- 
ceiving it.  Hence  they  tell  us,  if  the  atonement  was 
made  to  benefit  believers  and  not  unbelievers,  it  was 
not  made  for  Simon  Magus,  for  he  was  never  to  be- 
lieve. Here  again  comes  out  the  fault  of  the  whole 
system.  It  was  not  a  provision  for  him  as  a  capable 
agent,  because  it  was  not  to  benefit  one  of  his  character  ; 
entirely  burying  his  agency,  and  making  the  character 
as  passively  received  and  as  essential  to  the  man  as 
complexion  and  sex.  Had  it  been  for  white  men  and 
not  for  black  men,  or  for  men  and  not  for  women,  you 
might  have  said  of  that  Ethiopian  that  it  was  not  for 
him,  or  of  this  female  that  it  was  not  for  her.  Or  if  it 
had  been  publicly  and  avowedly  offered  for  the  re- 
ceivers of  faith,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  believers,  then 
you  might  have  said  that  it  was  not  for  Simon  Magus, 
for  he  was  never  to  receive  faith.  But,  if  it  was  publicly 
offered  for  the  use  of  all  indiscriminately  who  as  agents 
would  believe,  and  Simon  was  not  a  dead  mass  of  mat- 
ter, but  endowed  with  natural  ability  to  believe,  then 
it  was  a  complete  provision  for  him  as  a  capable  agent. 
And  then  unbelief  was  not  essential  to  him,  like  mind 
itself,  but  was  a  character  which  he  had  assumed  on  his 
own  responsibility.  The  man  will  be  charged  with  an 
atonement  which  was  never  made  to  benefit  the  unbe- 
liever. But  our  brethren  first  sink  the  man  in  the  un- 
believer, and  then  make  the  unbeliever  the  mere  non- 
recipient  of  faith. 

Z  2 


270  CONFUSION  [PART  H. 

And  when  they  have  thus  annihilated  human  agen- 
cy, and  set  men  before  them  as  mere  passive  receivers 
or  non-receivers  of  faith,  then  they  proceed  with  per- 
fect consistency  and  say;  if  the  atonement  was  made 
to  benefit  believers  and  not  unbelievers,  it  was  not 
made  for  the  non- elect,  for  they  will  never  believe. 
Here  they  get  unbelievers  and  non-elect  confounded. 
Now  believer  and  unbeliever  denote  agents  of  certain 
characters,  but  elect  and  non-elect  are  terms  of  passive 
import,  like  chosen  and  rejected,  and  denote  men  pas- 
sively appointed  to  receive  or  not  to  receive  regene- 
rating influence.  But  in  arriving  at  this  point  they 
make  no  new  mistake.  When  they  have  set  men  be- 
fore them,  not  as  those  who  are  to  exercise  faith,  but 
as  those  who  are  to  receive  it.  and  make  them  entirely 
passive  in  their  faith  and  unbelief,  it  is  no  matter 
whether  they  exclude  them  as  unbelievers,  or  as  men 
passively  appointed  to  be  non-recipients  of  faith. 
Had  the  atonement  not  been  for  black  men  or  for  wo- 
men, you  might  have  said  that  it  was  not  for  those  who 
were  foreordained  to  that  complexion  or  sex  :  that  is, 
you  might  have  affirmed  the  same  thing  of  them  as  ap- 
pointed to  such  a  distinction,  that  you  wou  Id  assert  of  them 
as  actually  possessing  it,  because  in  the  appointment 
and  the  possession  they  are  equally  passive.  So  if  men 
were  as  passive  in  their  unbelief  as  they  are  in  their 
non-election,  you  might  affirm  the  same  thing  of  them 
as  non-elect  that  you  do  of  them  as  unbelievers.  But 
now  to  confound  these  terms,  is  to  bury  up  their  agency 
in  rejecting  the  Gospel,  and  utterly  to  change  the 
principles  of  the  divine  administration.  Because  men 
are  denied  the  benefits  of  the  atonement  as  unbelievers, 
you  exclude  them  as  non-elect.  But  to  debar  them  as 
non-elect,  is  to  cut  them  ofT  without  their  own  fault ; 
to  shut  them  out  as  unbelievers,  is  to  make  their  own 


G-IIAP.  XI.]  OF  NAMES.  271 

sinful  rejection  of  the  Gospel  the  ground  of  their  ex- 
elusion.  In  short  this  confounding  of  unbelievers  and 
non-elect  completely  overlooks  the  agency  of  men, 
and  brings  into  use  such  a  language  as  would  befit 
them  if  they  were  mere  machines. 

And  yet  this  very  practice  gives  to  our  brethren  al- 
most all  the  texts  which  even  have  the  semblance  of 
supporting  their  cause,  and  it  appears  also  in  a  num- 
ber of  their  terms  and  popular  arguments.  Thus  be- 
cause Christ  laid  "  down  his  life  for  his  frien ds"  they 
infer  that  he  died  only  for  the  elect.  "  If  a  man  pay 
a  ransom  price  to  redeem  his  own  friends  from  captivi- 
ty, however  great  the  price,  or  however  many  others 
may  be  in  captivity,  yet  when  it  is  inquired,  for  whom 
was  the  price  paid  ?  the  answer  is,  for  his  friends  whom 
he  designed  to  redeem."  But  if  the  atonement  of 
Christ  was  to  benefit  all  who  would  be  his  friends,  it 
was  a  provision  for  all  as  capable  agents,  for  no  natu- 
ral inability,  and  nothing  but  a  blamable  temper,  pre- 
vents any  from  being  his  friends.  In  the  same  manner 
whatever  is  said  of  the  Church,  (."  the  general  assem- 
bly" of  heirs,  the  people  who  "in  the  dispensation  of 
the  fulness  of  times"  are  gathered  "  together  in  one — 
in  Christ,"  the  body  with  its  living  members  compact- 
ed together  and  drawing  present  life  from  the  Head, 
the  bride  already  married  to  Christ  by  a  voluntary  co- 
venant*,) they  apply  unqualifiedly  to  the  elect.  But 
though  in  one  or  two  places  the  body  of  believers,  un- 
der the  name  of  the  Church,  are  spoken  of  with  special 
reference  to  their  antecedent  election,  and  to  their  re- 
demption from  sin  by  the  larger  ransom,  yet  the  unre- 
generate  elect  are  never  comprehended  under  the  name 
of  Church.  Thus  too  whatever  is  said  of  the  sheep, 
(the  flock,  by  whose  footsteps  believers  are  exhorted 

*  Eph.  1.  10,  22,  23.  and  4.  16.  Heb.  12.  23.  Rev.  21.  9, 


272  CONFUSION  [part  Ii. 

to  go  forth,  who  are  under  the  sensible  care  of  the 
good  Shepherd,  and  are  led  by  him  into  "  green  pas- 
tures" and  "  beside  the  still  waters,"  who  know  him, 
and  hear  his  voice,  and  follow  him,  and  will  stand  on 
his  right  hand  to  receive  a  gracious  reward*,)  they  ap- 
ply to  the  elect  as  such,  merely  because  once  by  way 
of  anticipation  Christ  calls  the  unregenerate  elect  his 
sheept.  And  they  reason  about  the  sheep  and  goats  as 

*  Ps.  23.  Cant  1.  7,  8.  Mat.  25.  33.  John  10.  14,  27. 

t  John  10.  16.  In  this  chapter  Christ  sets  before  him  the  sheep  as 
a  flock  already  gathered  and  under  his  care  ;  and  in  what  he  says  about 
laying  down  his  life  for  them,  lie  alludes  to  the  fidelity  of  a  shepherd  in 
exposing  his  life  to  defend  his  flock,  actually  assembLd  around  him,  from 
beasts  of  prey.  "  The  good  shepherd  giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep.  Bui 
he  that  is  a  hireling  and  not  the  shepherd,  whose  own  the  sheep  are  not, 
seeth  the  wolf  coming  and  leaveth  the  sheep  and  fleeth,  and  the  wolf 
catcheth  them  and  scattereth  the  sheep.  The  hireling  fleeth  because 
he  is  a  hireling  and  careth  not  for  the  sheep.  I  am  the  good  Shepherd, 
and  know  my  sheep,  and  am  known  of  mine. — My  sheep  hear  my  voiee, 
and  I  know  them,  and  they follow  wie."  He  had  begun  the  discourse  by 
saying,  "He,  [that  pastor  in  the  Church,]  th.n  entereth  in  by  the  door, 
[Christ  is  the  door,  ver.  7,  9.]  is  the  shepherd  of  the  sheep,  [of  the 
church,  or  body  of  believers.]  To  him  the  porter  openeth,  and  the 
sheep,  [believers,]  hear  his  voice  ;  and  he  calieth  his  own  -beep  by 
name  £>nd  leadelh  them  out,  [from  other  sheep  who  are  false  professors,  j 
And  when  he  putteth  forth  his  own  sheep  he  goeth  before  them,  [in  a 
way  of  holy  example  and  instruction,]  and  the  sheep  fellow  him,  [in  a 
life  of  holiness;]  for  they  know  his  voice.  And  a  stranger  will  they 
not  follow,  but  will  flee  from  him;  for  they  know  not  the  voire  of 
strangers. — All  that  ever  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers  ;  but 
the  sheep  did  not  hear  them."  In  all  this  he  meant  nothing  by  sheep 
but  members  of  the  visible  Church,  and  except  one  allusion  to  false 
professors,  true  believers.  He  then  changes  the  figure,  and  from  the 
door  through  which  the  under  shepherds  enter,  he  becomes  the  Shepherd 
himself:  but  still  the  primary  meaning  of  sheep  is  believers.  When  he 
calls  the  elect  Gentiles  his  sheep,  it  is  plainly  by  anticipation;  but 
when  he  speaks  of  laying  down  his  life  for  his  sheep,  he  means  for  the 
gathered  and  existing  flock,  such  a  flock  as  a  hireling  Jewish  pastor 
would  abandon  to  the  wolves.  This  was  accomplished  when  it  was 
said,  "  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  Shepherd."  But  who  at  that  time 
were  the  flock?  the  unregenerate  elect  or  believers?  It  is  added, 
"  Smite  the  Shepherd  and  the  sheep  shall  bescattered."     This,  we  are 


CHAP.  XI.]  OF  NAMES.  273 

though  these  terms  denoted  the  elect  and  non-elect, 
when  in  fact,  with  the  single  exception  already  noticed, 
they  uniformly  stand  for  the  good  and  bad*.  In  the 
same  way  they  make  the  seed  of  the  serpent  to  mean 
the  non-elect,  and  argue  that  the  Seed  of  the  woman 
would  not  die  for  the  seed  of  the  serpent ;  as  though 
the  elect  themselves  were  not  the  seed  of  the  serpent 
while  continuing  to  possess  the  spirit  of  the  serpent. 
In  the  same  way  they  make  the  people  of  God  to  be  sy- 
nonymous with  elect.  "  For  whom  Christ  offered  him- 
self as  a  sacrifice,  for  the  same  does  he  intercede  ;  (for 
his  priestly  office  is  not  performed  for  any  by  halves  :) 
but  he  intercedes,  it  is  agreed,  for  none  but  his  own 
people  :  therefore  he  died  for  none  but  his  own  peo- 
ple." "  He  intercedes,  it  is  agreed,  for  none  but  his 
own  people  !"  But  who  are  his  own  people  ?  Not  the 
elect  as  such,  not  the  unconverted  elect,  but  believers. 

*  Unless  John  10.  26.  is  an  exception. 

expressly  told,  was  fulfilled  whe  )  the  twelve  disciples  forsook  him  and 
fled*.  In  another  place  by  the  sne-^p  which  he  came  to  save  he  plainly 
me-ns  believers,  viewed  with  reference  to  rheir  lost  condition  as  sin- 
ners. "Take  heed  that  ye  desp'se  not  one  of  these  little  ones. — For 
the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  that  which  was  lost.  How  think  ye  ? 
if  a  man  have  a  hundred  sheep,  and  one  of  them  be  gone  astray,  doth 
he  not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine,  and  goeth  into  the  mountains,  and 
seeketh  that  which  is  gone  astray  ?  And  if  so  be  that  he  find  it,  veri- 
ly I  say  unto  you,  he  rejoiceth  more  of  that  sheep  than  of  the  ninety 
and  nine  which  went  not  astray.  Even  so  it  is  not  the  will  of  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perisht." 
On  another  occasion  he  gave  a  similar  representation  to  justify  himself 
in  associating  with  publicans  and  sinners,  who,  with  Matthew  at  their 
head,  flocked  to  catch  the  word  of  life  from  his  lipsi.  But  notwith- 
standing all  this  evidence  that  by  the  sheep  for  which  he  laid  down  his 
life  he  meant  believers,  I  have  admitted  that  in  the  assertion  he  glan- 
ced at  the  previous  election  of  those  believers,  and  at  the  special  refer- 
ence which  he  had  to  them  as  his  reward. 

*  Zech.  13.  7.  Mat.  26.  31. 1  Mat.  18.  10—14. $  Luke  15. 

with  chap.  5.  27—32. 


274  CONFUSION  [part  II. 

"  In  the  place  where  it  was  said  unto  them,  ye  are  not 
my  people,  there  it  shall  be  said  unto  them,  ye  are  the 
sons  of  the  living  God."  "  I  will  call  them  my  peo- 
ple which  were  not  my  people,  and  her  beloved  which 
was  not  beloved*."  If  by  this  exclusive  interces- 
sion you  mean  that  Christ  pleads  for  the  pardon  and 
acceptance  of  none  but  believers,  we  agree  ;  but  what 
is  this  to  the  purpose  ?  We  never  thought  that  he  died 
to  procure  the  pardon  and  acceptance  of  any  but  be- 
lievers. I  suppose  that  the  intercession  of  Christ  is 
the  silent  plea  or  influence  of  his  expiation  and  merit, 
(for  it  is  not  limited  to  pardont  ;)  and  that  of  course 
it  is  just  so  far  offered  for  all  as  his  expiation  and  me- 
rit affect  all.  He  intercedes  then  that  millions  who  are 
never  saved  may  have  a  day  of  probation,  and  the  of- 
fer of  life,  and  the  common  and  convicting  influences 
of  the  Spirit.  He  intercedes  that  all  indiscriminately 
may  be  saved  who  will  believe,  offering  thus  his  effect- 
ual intercession  to  all,  and  making  it  to  all  a  complete 
provision  for  moral  agents.  "He  is  able — to  save 
them  to  the  uttermost  who  come  unto  God  by  him,  see- 
ing he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  themj." 
He  intercedes  that  the  elect  may  have  the  gift  of  faith  : 
and  when  as  agents  they  believe,  he  employs  for  them 
that  full  intercession  which  he  offers  to  others.  After 
the  same  manner  when  the  sacred  writers  say  that 
Christ  atoned  for  them,  our  brethren  will  always  have 
it  that  they  speak  of  themselves  as  elect,  and  not  as 
moral  agents  and  believers.  But  this  is  assumed  with- 
out a  particle  of  proof.  In  this  way  it  is  that  they  find 
an  atonement  which  accomplishes  reconciliation.  They 
hear  the  apostles  say  that  they  and  other  believers  had 
been  saved  from  wrath  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  mean  - 

•  Hos,  1.  10.     Rom.  9.  25,  26. *  John  17. %  Heli.  7.  II 


^HAP.  XI.]  OF  NAMES.  275 

ing  that  as  believers  they  had  been  pardoned  on  the 
ground  of  the  atonement;  and  they  at  once  conclude  that 
all  this  is  said  of  them  as  elect,  and  that  of  course  the 
atonement  reconciles  all  for  whom  it  was  offered. 

In  this  way  it  is  that  they  discover  in  the  Scriptures  so 
many  appearances  of  a  limited  atonement.  Take 
away  those  texts  which  speak  of  believers,  and  they 
will  be  surprised  to  find  how  few  remain  which  glance 
at  any  special  reference  to  the  elect.  The  whole  of 
this  number  which  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  after 
examining  the  collection  made  by  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
were  presented  in  a  former  chapter ;  and  they  express 
either  the  power  of  the  larger  ransom,  or  the  reference 
of  Christ  to  the  elect  as  his  reward.  Not  one  of  them 
touches  the  question  now  in  debate.  I  have  been 
struck  with  the  fact  that  in  an  ingenious  treatise  lately 
written  to  prove  a  limited  atonement,  when  the  author 
came  to  produce  his  direct  texts,  in  the  form  of  a  dis- 
tinct argument,  he  quoted  but  these  two :  "  I  lay  down 
my  life  for  the  sheep,"  and,  "  The  Church — which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood  ;"  two  texts  of 
which,  (if  they  are  not  limited  to  believers,)  the  former 
expresses  the  special  reference  of  Christ  to  the  elect 
as  his  reward,  and  the  latter  the  power  of  the  larger 
ransom.  For  the  rest  the  author  chiefly  relies  on 
election,  foreknowledge,  the  secret  purpose  of  God, 
and  the  limitation  of  the  larger  ransom  ;  neither  of 
which  is  denied,  or  has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  present 
question. 


276.  LOVE  EXPRESSED  [PART  II. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE   TREATMENT    OF    AGENTS    BY    ITSELF    EXPRESSES 
DIVINE    BENEVOLENCE. 

God  feels  a  benevolence  towards  all  his  creatures, 
even  towards  those  whom  he  never  sanctifies.  That 
is,  he  does  not  delight  in  their  misery,  but  delights  in 
their  happiness  as  a  thing  in  itself  agreeable,  and 
would  never  sacrifice  their  happiness  but  to  promote 
a  higher  good.  This  benevolence  towards  the  un- 
sanctioned he  is  able  to  express  otherwise  than  in 
words,  or  he  is  not.  If  not,  he  can  never  bring  any 
proof  of  its  existence,  except  what  depends  on  his 
treatment  of  the  sanctified.  If  he  can  express  this  be- 
nevolence in  actions,  it  must  be  by  the  mere  treatment 
of  agents. 

And  this  is  the  fact.  Those  measures  which  are 
calculated  to  promote  the  happiness  of  creatures  if 
they  will  do  their  duty,  do  really  express  his  be- 
nevolence towards  them,  though  never  attended  with 
sanctifying  influence.  That  foundation  in  moral 
agents  which  gives  to  the  measures  this  expression,  is 
their  capacity  to  use  them  for  their  good,  or  what  we 
call  their  natural  ability.  For  if  they  had  no  more 
power  to  derive  happiness  from  them  than  stocks,  the 
treatment,  so  far  from  being  an  expression  of  benevo- 
lence, would  be  a  mockery.  But  with  that  power,  all 
those  provisions  and  mercies,  all  that  display  of  light, 
and  motives,  and  long-suffering,  which  are  calculated 
to  promote  their  happiness  if  they  will  do  their  duty, 
are  indications  of  that  common  benevolence  which 
God  feels  towards  all.  If  they  are  no  indications 
without  sanctifying  influence,  any  more  than  if  men 


CHAP.  Xfl.]  WITHOUT  SANCTIFICATION.  277 

were  blocks,  what  becomes  of  the  capacity  on  which 
all  their  obligations  are  grounded  ?  It  is  plainly  no 
adequate  foundation  to  support  any  of  the  measures  of 
a  moral  government ;  and  those  measures  without  the 
Spirit  are  as  unsuited  to  men  as  to  the  beasts  of  the 
field  or  the  clods  of  the  valley. 

Now  apply  this  to  the  atonement.  By  such  a  pro- 
vision for  those  who  eventually  perish,  God  puts  re- 
mission within  the  reach  of  their  natural  power,  and 
lays  them  under  reasonable  obligations  to  live,  and 
fastens  the  blame  of  their  destruction  on  themselves, 
and  wipes  off  the  charge  of  forcing  them  to  death 
against  their  will.  And  all  this  he  instructs  us  to  be- 
lieve is  a  genuine  expression  of  benevolence  towards 
them,  and  if  he  is  sincere  it  really  is.  If  any  thing 
which  he  can  do  can  indicate  his  philanthropy  to- 
wards them,  what  more  than  making,  at  so  vast  an  ex- 
pense, such  a  provision  for  their  pardon  that  nothing 
but  their  own  distinct  and  voluntary  agency  can  work 
their  ruin  ?  Any  thing  analogous  to  this  in  human 
affairs  would  certainly  be  indicative  of  love  ;  and  God 
has  no  way  to  discover  his  feelings  towards  the  per- 
sons of  the  unsanctified  but  by  conduct  according  with 
the  manner  of  men.  If  his  foreknowledge  or  failure 
to  sanctify  must  silence  that  expression,  there  is  no 
way  in  which  he  can  act  out  the  real  temper  of  his 
heart  towards  the  persons  of  those  who  perish.  How 
then  came  we  by  the  knowledge  that  such  a  temper 
exists  ? 

This  provision  for  the  finally  impenitent,  he  himself 
teaches  us  to  believe,  makes  the  same  expression  of 
character  as  though  he  had  no  foreknowledge  or  domi- 
nion over  the  mind.  And  if  we  find  any  difficulty  in 
viewing  it  apart,  and  giving  full  credit  to  the  discove- 
ries  which  it  separately  makes,  we  ought  to  put  it 

2  A 


278  LOVE  EXPRESSED  [PART  JJ. 

down  to  the  weakness  of  our  apprehensions,  to  the 
incapacity  of  a  finite  mind  to  comprehend  the  Infinite, 
on  whom  it  devolves  not  only  to  govern  the  universe 
by  law  and  motives,  but  to  form  the  dispositions  of  his 
creatures.  But  certainly  it  was  his  intention  to  make 
an  impression  on  us  that  he  is  in  all  respects  what  he 
appears  in  a  moral  government  to  be.  Certain  it  is 
that  when  he  provided  an  atonement  which  all  might 
have  for  accepting,  and  which  all  had  natural  ability 
and  were  under  obligations  to  accept,  he  intended  to 
make  an  impression  on  us  of  his  real  benevolence  to- 
wards the  whole  human  race.  What  does  he  plainly 
say  ?  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God  sent 
not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but 
that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved."  "  Not 
willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance."  u  Who  will  have  all  men  to 
be  saved  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth."  "As  I  live — I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  the  wicked,  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way 
and  live."  "  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy 
children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chick- 
ens under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not."  "  O  that  they 
were  wise,  that  they  understood  this,  that  they  would 
consider  their  latter  end*  !"  If  by  fastening  our  eyes 
on  foreknowledge,  and  election,  and  the  passiveness  of 
men,  we  get  confused  and  lose  somewhat  of  the  ex- 
pression which  the  atonement  really  makes,  yet  with- 
out the  most  blasphemous  imputations  we  cannot  doubt 
that  these  declarations  of  the  Moral  Governour  ex- 
plain the  genuine  feelings  of  his  heart.  We  may  be  as- 

*  Deut.  32.29.  Ezek,.  33.  11.  Mat.  23.  37.  John.  *.  JG,  17.  1  Tim. 
.2,  4.  2  Pet.  3. 9. 


CHAP.  XII.]        WITHOUT  SANCTIFICATION.  279 

sured  that  we  convey  right  ideas  of  him  when  we  say, 
that  his  exertions  for  the  salvation  of  the  wicked  Is- 
raelites proceeded  from  unfeigned  love.  What  does 
he  tell  us  himself?  "In  all  their  affliction  he  was 
afflicted,  and  the  Angel  of  his  presence  saved  them  ;  in 
his  love  and  in  his  pity  he  redeemed  them,  and  he  bore 
them  and  carried  them  all  the  days  of  old.  But  they 
rebelled  and  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit ;  therefore  he  was 
turned  to  be  their  enemy  and  fought  against  them." 
"  1  removed  his  shoulder  from  the  burden,  his  hands 
were  delivered  from  the  pots.  Thou  calledst  in  trou- 
ble and  I  delivered  thee,  I  answered  thee  in  the  secret 
place  of  thunder,  I  proved  thee  at  the  waters  of  Meri- 
bah. — But  my  people  would  not  hearken  to  my 
voice,  and  Israel  would  none  of  me.  So  I  gave  them  up 
unto  their  own  hearts'  lust,  and  they  walked  in  their  own 
counsels.  O  that  my  people  had  hearkened  unto  me, 
and  Israel  had  walked  in  my  ways  !  I  should  soon  have 
subdued  their  enemies,  and  turned  my  baud  against 
their  adversaries*."  We  may  be  assured  that  we 
convey  right  ideas  of  him  when  we  say  that  he  sent 
the  Gospel  to  the  inhabitants  of  Capernaum  for  their 
good,  as  an  act  of  unfeigned  mercy,  and  from  perfect 
good  will  to  them.  The  whole  ministry  of  Christ  to 
that  city  was  evidently  intended  to  make  this  impres- 
sion. And  what  was  the  meaning  of  his  tears  over 
Jerusalem  ?  Did  they  discover  no  interest  in  the  hap- 
piness of  its  inhabitants  ? 

But  it  is  flatly  denied  that  the  death  of  Christ  was 
any  expression  of  benevolence  to  the  non-elect ;  and 
the  Church  has  heard  the  affecting  denial.  "  What 
induced  him  to  die  for  these,  seeing  he  had  passed 
them,  and  in  the  language  of  Scripture  hated  them  ?  If 
$e  died  for  them,  he  either  had  a  motive  or  not.     If  he 

*  Ps.  81.  6—14.  Isai.  63,  9,  10. 


280  LOVE  EXPRESSED  [PART  II, 

had,  what  was  it?  Not  any  peculiar  love,  for  this  he 
entertained  not.  Was  it  from  some  general  affection  to 
them  as  creatures  ?  but  they  had  forfeited  all  regard 
from  the  Creator."  This  distressing  suggestion  by 
fair  implication  goes  all  the  way  of  affirming  that  no- 
thing which  God  can  do  is  expressive  of  benevolence 
to  those  whom  he  fails  to  sanctify;  that  all  the  boun- 
ties and  efforts  of  heaven  are  no  indications  of  mercy 
or  goodness  while  men  are  bent  on  their  own  destruc- 
tion ;  that  neither  the  creation  nor  preservation  of  the 
non-elect,  neither  temporal  blessings  nor  the  means  of 
grace,  are  any  tokens  of  good  will  to  them  ;  in  short 
that  God  has  no  benevolence  towards  them,  not  even 
a  "  general  affection  to  them  as  creatures."  And  have 
we  come  to  this  !  that  some  of  the  rational  creatures 
of  God  are  excluded  from  his  benevolence  !  What  feel- 
ings then  has  he  towards  them  ?  Is  it  absolute  indiffer- 
ence ?  or  is  it  malice  ?  But  God's  professions  are  far 
differ*^  ^  distinctly  c|a;-;  *e  praise  of  benevo- 
lence for  his  common  mercies  to  the  evil  and  unthank- 
ful, and  in  these  acts  sets  himself  forth  as  an  example 
of  genuine  love  to  enemies.  "Love  your  enemies. — 
that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven,  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and 
on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the 
unjust."  "  The  Lord  is  good  to  alt,  and  his  tender 
mercies  are  over  all  his  works."  "  Despisest  thou  the 
riches  of  his  goodness,  and  forbearance,  and  long-suf- 
fering, not  knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  leadeth 
thee  to  repentance  ?"  Before  "  all  nations,"  even 
while  they  were  left  "  to  walk  in  their  own  ways,"  "  he 
left  not  himself  without  witness,  in  that  he  did  good 
and  gave"  them  "  rain  from  heaven  and  fruitful  sea- 
sons, filling"  their  "  hearts  with  food  and  gladness*." 

*  Ps.  145;  9.  Mat,  5.  44,  45.  Acts  14.  16,. 17.  Rom.  2.  4. 


«?HAP.  XIII.]       WITHOUT  SANOTIFICATI0N.  281 

But  all  this  upon  your  plan  is  a  delusive  show,  and  the 
bounties  of  God  to  the  heathen  discovered  only  his  ex- 
istence and  power,  which  alone  could  not  render  them 
"  without  excuse." 

According  to  this  alarming  principle  the  non-elect 
have  no  reason  but  ignorance  of  their  own  reproba- 
tion to  thank  God  for  any  thing  he  has  ever  done ; 
and  when  they  awake  in  hell  they  will  never  again 
accuse  themselves  of  ingratitude  to  eternity.  And  yet 
unthankfulness  is  numbered  among  their  worst  sins*. 
In  short  the  pernicious  influence  of  this  sentiment  is  to 
persuade  all  men,  in  proportion  as  they  waver  about 
their  own  election,  to  doubt  whether  they  have  any 
cause  to  thank  God  for  their  existence  or  for  one  of 
all  his  mercies.  And  what  must  be  the  tendency  of 
such  a  doctrine,  no  one,  I  should  think,  could  doubt. 

In  opposition  to  all  this  I  plead  that  the  death  of 
Christ,  so  far  as  it  is  known,  lays  the  whole  human 
race  under  obligations  to  gratitude,  not  founded  on  any 
opinion  which  they  may  form  of  their  own  election,  or 
on  the  darkness  which  may  hang  around  that  question, 
but  on  a  vast,  and  obvious,  and  common  benefit, 
strongly  marked  with  benevolence  to  the  race  at  large  ; 
that  every  man,  without  waiting  to  ascertain  his  future 
destiny,  is  bound  to  bless  God  "  for  his  unspeakable 
gift,"  and  to  acknowledge  the  greatness  of  the  love  in 
relation  to  himself. 

— ^^^ — 
CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  PURPOSES  OF  THE  MORAL  GOVERNOUR  NOT  TO  BE 
CONFOUNDED  WITH  THOSE  OF  THE  SOVEREIGN  EFFI- 
CIENT CAUSE. 

What  then,  has  God  two  minds  ?  No,  but  he  acts  in 
two  characters,  founded  on  the  two  relations  of  men ; 

*  2  Tim.  3.  % 

2  A  2 


982  DESIGNS  OF  GOD  IN  [PART  II. 

two  characters  in  most  respects  independent  of  each 
other,  because  the  two  relations  of  men  are  equally  in- 
dependent ;  two  characters,  as  far  as  they  are  inde- 
pendent, just  as  distinct  as  though  they  belonged  to 
two  separate  beings :  and  you  may  speak  of  the  de- 
signs of  the  Moral  Governour  and  the  designs  of  the 
Sovereign  Efficient  Cause  as  distinctly  as  though  they 
ware  the  counsels  of  two  minds  ;  and  in  many  respects 
you  must  speak  so  or  not  express  the  truth  in  intelli- 
gible language. 

If  the  treatment  of  agents  by  itself  expresses  the 
divine  benevolence,  then  you  must  speak  of  God  in 
that  character  in  which  he  stands  related  to  agents,  as 
constructing  his  measures  ybr  their  good:  for  to  say 
that  a  measure  is  not  constructed  for  their  good,  and 
yet  that  it  expresses  benevolence  towards  tbem,  is  a 
contradiction  according  to  all  the  language  established 
and  understood  in  the  world.  And  if  we  must  say  of 
the  Moral  Governour,  (without  reference  to  election  or 
regeneration,  which  lie  out  of  his  sphere,)  that  he  con- 
structs his  measures  for  their  good,  then  we  must  say 
that  he  designs  them  for  their  good.  In  all  other  cases 
known  to  men,  the  unqualified  design  of  the  agent  is 
necessary  to  the  benevolent  expression  of  the  action  : 
and  without  the  ascription  of  such  a  design  to  the  Mo- 
ral Governour,  there  is  no  conveying  to  the  multitude 
the  idea,  and  turning  over  the  idea  in  all  its  familiar 
forms,  that  the  measures  express  his  benevolence. 
"We  must  therefore  make  the  ascription,  without  any 
misgivings  on  account  of  foreknowledge  or  election, 
or  we  have  no  way  to  affirm  intelligibly  and  familiarly 
of  any  measure  unaccompanied  by  sanctification,  that 
it  expresses  the  benevolence  of  God. 

It  answers  an  important  end  for  God  to  appear  be- 
fore his  creatures  in  a  character  which  stands  related 


CHAP.  XIII.]        DIFFERENT  CHARACTERS.  283 

to  agents,  and  to  speak  of  himself,  and  allow  his  crea- 
tures to  speak  of  him,  in  a  form  which  would  express 
the  benevolence  of  a  temporal  prince  who  had  no  con- 
trol over  the  minds  of  his  subjects  but  by  motives,  and 
in  that  character  to  say,  uO  that  they  were  wise!" 
and,  "  Turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die  ?"  It  gives  him  an 
opportunity  to  express  towards  millions  a  benevolence 
which  otherwise  would  not  be  revealed,  and  to  treat 
his  creatures  according  to  their  rational  nature.  And 
there  is  no  deception  in  the  case.  The  Being  who  sus- 
tains this  character  means  not  to  say  that  he  does  not 
support  another  in  which  he  can  control  the  heart,  or 
that  the  Divine  Mind  is  really  disappointed.  He  takes 
abundant  care  to  guard  against  this  mistake.  He  only 
means  to  express  his  benevolence  by  a  language  and 
measures  fitted  to  moral  agents.  And  it  is  of  infinite 
importance  that  he  should  have  full  credit  for  all  the 
exhibitions  made  in  this  character.  But  the  moment 
you  deny  to  the  Moral  Governour  all  purpose  of  mer- 
cy towards  the  unsanctified,  (though  at  infinite  expense 
he  has  put  life  within  their  reach,  and  exhausted  argu- 
ments to  persuade  them  to  live,)  you  annihilate  the 
whole  expression  of  benevolence  made  in  the  pure 
treatment  of  agents,  and  cover  up  one  of  the  depart- 
ments in  which  God  has  chosen  to  manifest  himself. 

By  denying  to  the  Moral  Governour  such  a  benevo- 
lent aim,  and  confounding  his  designs  with  those  of  the 
Sovereign  Efficient  Cause,,  you  would  spread  confusion 
through  every  part  of  the  divine  administration,  and  bring 
upon  God  and  the  language  he  employs  charges  which 
I  tremble  to  name.  You  might  construct  propositions 
upon  this  principle  which  would  amount  to  impeach- 
ment and  blasphemy,  and  impute  to  God  a  character 
more  baleful  and  disastrous  than  that  of  Satan.  In  this 
way  you  would  denounce  one  half  of  his  administra- 


284  DESIGNS  OF  GOD  ISf  [PART  IK. 

tion  as  a  farce.  You  would  contradict  the  sincerity 
of  his  offers  to  the  non-elect,  and  even  bring  upon  him 
the  horrid  charge  of  making  them  to  be  damned.  The 
Sovereign  Efficient  Cause,  it  is  admitted,  had  no 
thought  of  mercy  towards  them,  no  purpose  to  answer 
by  them  in  the  world :  and  if  the  Moral  Governour  is 
not  allowed  to  have  any  benevolent  designs  concerning 
them,  for  what  purpose  were  they  created  ?  No  one 
has  any  thing  to  do  with  them  in  a  way  of  favour ; 
were  they  made  solely  to  be  damned  ?  And  as  to  the 
insincerity  of  the  offer,  you  present  God  as  saying, 
"  Turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die  ?"  and  "  O  that  they 
were  wise  !"  while  in  no  character  has  he  any  thought 
or  desire  of  mercy  towards  them.  But  separate  the 
Moral  Governour  from  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause, 
and  allow  him  to  express  his  benevolence  in  that  in- 
dependent character  in  which  he  has  nothing  to  em- 
ploy but  motives,  and  all  is  plain. 

I  dare  not  therefore  say  of  God  unqualifiedly  that  he 
had  no  purpose  of  mercy  towards  the  non-elect.  Such 
language,  I  am  persuaded,  conveys  wrong  ideas  of  him, 
and  contradicts  that  expression  of  benevolence  which 
the  measures  of  his  government  were  intended  to  make. 

All  those  measures  which  are  calculated  to  promote 
the  happiness  of  creatures  indiscriminately,  ought  to 
be  spoken  of  as  having  such  an  aim,  except  in  rela- 
tion to  those  whom  the  Moral  Governour  himself  has 
publicly  sentenced  to  judicial  blindness  or  shut  up  in 
hell.  Of  the  former  class  we  have  a  right  to  say,  that 
he  bears  long  with  them  on  purpose  "  to  show  his 
wrath  and  make  his  power  known,"  in  their  more  ag- 
gravated destruction*.  But  to  impute  to  God  such  a 
design  in  sending  the  Gospel  to  men  merely  because 
they  are  non-elect,  would  be  a  dangerous  falsehood, 

*  Rom.  0.  22.  with  Is.  6.  10. 


CHAP.  XIII.]  DIFFERENT  CHARACTERS.  2Q5 

calculated  to  hide  one  half  of  the  exhibitions  which 
he  makes  of  himself  in  the  Gospel.  Our  brethren 
reason  as  though  all  the  non-elect  were  given  over  to 
judicial  blindness ;  whereas  this  abandonment  is  the 
act  of  the  Moral  Governour,  who  himself,  so  to  speak, 
knows  not  a  non-elect  person  on  earth. 

And  now  to  show  you  what  has  called  for  these  re- 
marks, I  present  the  following.  "  Can  it  be  said  with 
reason  that  Christ  when  he  hung  on  the  cross  poured 
out  his  life  and  his  soul  for  those  whom  he  never  in- 
tended to  save  ?  Here  Arminians,  and  even  Luther- 
ans and  Baxterians,  have  a  subterfuge.  They  say  it 
was  the  will  of  God  to  save  all  men.  But  those  with 
whom  we  now  contend  agree  that  his  purpose  was  to 
save  the  elect  only,  and  they  reject  the  distinction  of 
antecedent  and  consequent  will ;  and  therefore  to  them 
there  is  no  evasion. — If  he  died  for  those  whom  he 
had  no  intention  to  save,  it  is  incumbent  on  those  who 
maintain  the  opinion  to  point  out  for  what  end.  No 
wise  agent  performs  an  important  work  without  hav- 
ing an  important  end  in  view.  Let  them  tell  us  then 
what  was  the  end  of  Christ  in  dvine  for  those  whom 
he  had  no  intention  of  saving." 

The  writer  was  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the 
opinions  of  those  with  whom  he  had  to  "  contend." 
We  do  not  indeed  say  of  God  in  his  whole  character 
that  it  was  his  purpose  to  save  all  men.  Neither  do 
we  explain  any  difficulties  by  resorting  to  an  antece- 
dent and  consequent  will.  We  admit  that  the  Sove- 
reign Efficient  Cause  absolutely  decreed  the  charac- 
ters of  men,  so  far  as  whether  he  would  make  them 
holy  or  leave  them  to  themselves.  But  we  think  that 
all  these  difficulties  which  have  perplexed  the  Church 
in  consequence  of  viewing  God  in  a  single  character, 
may  easily  be  solved  by  contemplating  him  in   two. 


286  THE  EMISSION  OP  [PART   II. 

While  we  do  not  say  of  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause 
that  he  suspended  any  thing  on  the  conduct  of  men,  or 
had  the  least  reference  to  that  conduct  in  one  of  his 
decisions,  (because  his  decrees  and  acts  terminate 
upon  men  as  purely  passive  ;)  we  scruple  not  to  attri- 
bute to  the  Moral  Governour  all  the  aims  which  the 
measures  of  his  government  are  calculated  to  accom- 
plish.  We  readily  yield  to  the  Sovereign  Efficient 
Cause  every  thing  that  the  highest  Calvinist  ever  did, 
and  none  the  less  ascribe  to  the  Moral  Governour 
every  thing,  as  relates  to  the  present  subject,  that  an 
Arminian  ever  cfid.  In  particular  we  find  no  difficulty 
in  saying  of  the  Ruler  of  agents,  that  he  wills  the  sal- 
vation of  all  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  sent.  And  we  un- 
derstand Peter  and  Paul  as  speaking  of  God  in  the 
same  character,  and  meaning  the  same  thing,  when 
they  say  of  him  that  he  u  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved 
and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  j"  "  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance*."  We  dare  not  therefore  say  of 
him  who  provided  the  atonement,  (for  that  was  the 
Moral  Governour  alone,)  that  he  had  no  intention  to 
benefit  the  non-elect,  nor  do  we  generally  speak  of 
him  as  even  knowing  such  a  class  of  men. 


♦♦<* 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  TREATMENT  OF  INDIVIDUAL  AGENTS  INTENDED 
TO  INFLUENCE  AGENTS  GENERALLY. 

The  question  often  arises,  why  all  this  labour  and 
expense  to  exert  upon  creatures  the  dominion  of  mo< 

-r  1  Tim.  2.4.     2£et.  3.  9. 


GHAP.  XIV.]  MOTIVES  A  GREAT  END.  287 

tives,  when  without  motives  God  could  sway  them  by 
his  power  as  he  pleases  ?  But  without  motives  he 
could  not  sway  them  to  rational  action,  nor  furnish 
them  with  rational  enjoyment.  He  could  not  sway 
them  to  any  action,  nor  furnish  them  with  any  enjoy- 
ment. The  maniac,  the  beast,  the  worm,  is  governed 
by  motives.  The  moment  you  pass  the  empire  of  mo- 
tives you  are  among  insensible  objects.  The  sway  of 
which  you  speak  must  be  supported  by  impressions 
on  insensitive  machines.  There  is  no  way  to  secure 
holy  order  and  happiness  but  by  motives  fitted  t© 
awaken  the  best  affections  and  the  purest  joy.  Sanc- 
tifying powTer  without  these  would  produce  no  more 
than  it  did  on  the  infant  Jeremiah  and  John.  While 
yon  speak  of  a  sway  by  main  strength  without  motives, 
what  sense  in  talking  of  the  anarchy  which  would 
have  resulted  from  giving  up  the  law  by  pardoning 
without  an  atonement  ?  What  need  of  an  atonement 
or  a  law  when  motives  are  no  longer  needed  ?  The 
only  benefit  of  either  is  in  the  motives  which  they 
present. 

To  fill  the  universe  with  motives  then  is  the  great 
point.  The  more  those  which  prompt  to  love,  obe- 
dience, gratitude,  joy,  and  praise,  are  spread,  the 
richer  and  happier  the  universe  is.  A  God  of  bene- 
volence could  not  therefore  but  wish  to  bring  forth  all 
those  motives  which  his  own  infinite  perfection  could 
furnish,  all  that  could  appear  from  a  full  exposition  of 
the  reasonableness  of  his  claims  and  his  unmingled 
benevolence,  all  that  could  appeal  to  the  reason,  the 
conscience,  the  hopes,  the  fears,  or  the  ingenuousness 
of  creatures. 

This  is  the  end  for  which  all  the  manifestations  of  God 
have  been  made.  If  he  exerts  authority,  it  is  to  fur- 
nish motives  to  creatures.     If  he  instructs,  invites. 


288  THE  EMISSION  OP  [PART  II. 

promises,  or  threatens,  it  is  with  no  other  view.  What- 
ever direct  e.id  any  measure  may  have,  its  ultimate  end 
is  this.  God  glorified  is  the  universe  filled  with  mo- 
tives, drawn  from  himself  and  prompting  creatures  to 
love,  joy,  and  praise. 

Now  these  motives  are  chiefly  derived  from  the  pure 
treatment  of  moral  agents.  By  reverting  to  the  chap- 
ter on  a  moral  government,  it  will  be  seen  how  vast  a 
proportion  of  the  divine  manifestations  are  made  in 
this  separate  department. 

The  treatment  of  agents  by  itself  is  therefore  a  sys- 
tem of  incalculable  importance.  That  general  treat- 
ment which  is  bottomed  on  their  capacity,  and  would 
have  no  meaning  without  it ;  which  assumes  at  every 
step  that  they  have  natural  ability  to  act  without  the 
Spirit,  and  is  in  truth  the  same  as  though  they  were 
independent ;  which  comprehends  all  the  instructions 
given,  all  the  authority  employed,  all  the  obligations 
imposed,  all  the  motives  presented,  all  the  provisions 
made,  all  the  invitations  offered,  all  the  long-suffering 
exercised,  all  the  guilt  charged,  all  the  rewards  con- 
ferred ;  this  system,  separate  from  the  sovereign  ope- 
rations of  the  Spirit,  is  of  immeasurable  importance. 
Laying  out  of  account  the  direct  ends  which  the  mea- 
sures are  calculated  to  accomplish,  the  system  as  a 
whole  is  of  unspeakable  importance  as  a  mere  source 
of  motives* 

Considered  in  this  light,  and  not  barely  as  expres- 
sive of  direct  benevolence  towards  the  objects  con- 
cerned, the  system  is  one  which  God  has  been  at  infi- 
nite expense  to  perfect.  If  to  give  machines  a  right 
direction  by  blind  impressions  was  enough,  and  it  was 
not  important  to  support  the  dominion  of  motives  over 
the  reason  and  conscience  of  creatures,  (an  empire  al- 
together distinct  from  the  exertions  of  sovereign  power 


CHAP.  XIV.j  MOTIVES  A  GREAT  END.  289 

upon  the  mind.)  why  the  penalty  of  the  law  ?  and  why 
the  infinite  expense  incurred  on  Calvary  and  in  hell  ? 

But  it  must  never  be  supposed  that  the  Moral  Go- 
vernour  intends,  to  draw  motives  from  measures  which 
hold  out  a  false  show.  It  is  because  they  are  what 
they  profess  to  be,  that  they  are  real  exhibitions  of 
God  and  fitted  to  influence  creatures. 

Thus  we  find  the  Moral  Governour  pursuing  a  sys- 
tem of  measures  unfeignedly  expressive  of  benevo- 
lence towards  all  whom  they  are  adapted  to  serve,  and 
entitled  to  be  spoken  of  as  aimed  at  their  good-  And 
this  he  does,  not  only  with  a  direct  view  to  the  imme- 
diate end  which  the  measures  are  calculated  to  accom- 
plish, (at  least  in  human  language  it  must  be  so  ex- 
pressed,) but  for  the  purpose  of  sending  out  motives  to 
affect  moral  agents  generally.  It  is  with  this  emission 
of  motives  that  we  are  now  concerned. 

Here  we  must  fasten  our  eyes  on  the  Moral  Govern- 
our alone,  and  think  and  speak  of  him  as  presenting 
the  motives  in  every  instance  from  direct  benevolence 
to  the  person  concerned,  and  with  a  sincere  aim  at 
his  good,  (as  the  thing  must  be  expressed  in  human 
language,)  except  in  reference  to  those  whom  he  him- 
self has  already  given  over  to  judicial  blindness  or  to 
punishment.  The  array  of  motives  is  as  directly  cal- 
culated for  the  happiness  of  all  to  whom  they  are  pro- 
fessedly addressed,  as  the  "rain  from  heaven  and 
fruitful  seasons."  The  latter  may  be  abused,  and  so 
may  the  former.  But  while  creatures  have  a  capacity 
to  improve  the  blessing,  it  is  certainly  calculated  for 
their  good,  and  ought  to  be  spoken  of  as  aimed  at 
their  happiness.  Any  thing  analogous  to  this  between 
man  and  man  would  be  called  seeking  the  happiness 
of  those  concerned :  and  it  would  be  so  called  m 
the  government  of  God  were  it  not  for  his  foreknow* 
2  B 


290  THE  EMISSION  OF  [PART  IX. 

ledge  and  control  over  the  mind :  and  if  other  truths 
are  not  concealed,  it  may  be  so  called  without  conveying 
any  false  idea  of  him  :  and  it  is  so  called  by  "  Lutherans 
and  Baxterians,"  and  by  the  Bible  itself;  and  ought 
to  be  so  called,  because  it  is  in  fact  as  expressive  of 
direct  benevolence  as  what  is  so  denominated  among 
men,  and  because  there  is  no  other  way  of  familiarly 
expressing  this  great  truth.. 

We  must  not  therefore  say  of  the  measures  of  mercy 
which  relate  to  the  unsanctified,  that  they  are  intended 
to  furnish  motives  for  the  sole  benefit  of  elect  men  and 
angels  only,  but  for  the  everlasting  benefit  of  the  persons 
concerned,  and  of  all  other  moral  agents  through  the 
universe,  except  those  who  are  already  given  over  to 
judicial  blindness  or  to  punishment.  In  these  matters 
the  Moral  Governour  knows  no  creature  as  elect  or 
non-elect.  His  subjects  lie  before  him  in  three  classes  ; 
as  those  who  are  on  probation  and  unabandoned,  as 
those  who  are  confirmed  in  holiness  and  happiness  by 
way  of  reward,  and  as  those  who  are  sealed  or  delivered 
over  to  punishment.  To  say  in  relation  to  the  first 
class,  that  the  benevolent  aim  is  confined  to  a  part,  is 
to  say  that  their  happiness  is  sought  by  an  insincere 
treatment  of  the  rest. 

Now  then  to  apply  all  this  to  the  atonement.  The 
ultimate  design  of  the  mediation  of  Christ  was  to  fill 
the  universe  with  motives,  by  bringing  out  to  view  the 
secrets  of  the  Eternal  Mind.  He  came  to  be  "  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God,"  "  the  face"  in  which  he 
should  be  seen,  "  the  word"  by  which  he  should  be  ex- 
pressed*. 

But  the  direct  end  of  the  atonement,  as  related  to 
the  discoveries  of  God,  was  not  to  reveal  the  Sove- 
reign Efficient  Cause,  but  to  bring  out  to  view  the  glo- 

•  John  1.  1.  2  Cor.  4.  4,  6.  Col.  1.  15. 


CHAP.   XIV.]  MOTIVES  A  GREAT  END.  291 

ries  of  the  Moral  Governour.  The  whole  ground  of 
the  design  lay  among  the  relations  subsisting  between 
him  and  moral  agents.  It  was  the  difficulties  which 
arose  in  the  favourable  treatment  of  them  which  gave 
rise  to  the  august  mechanism  of  the  whole  plan  ;  and 
the  change  wrought  in  their  relations  constituted  the 
whole  of  the  wonderful  result.  The  exhibition  to  be 
made  of  God  by  the  direct  operation  of  this  great  mea- 
sure, was  in  his  relations  to  moral  agents  and  in  his 
treatment  of  them.  This  end  had  no  dependance  on 
the  sovereign  acts  of  the  Spirit. 

"By  such  a  provision  for  a  sinning  agent  the  Moral 
Xjovernour  intended  to  furnish  motives  for  the  everlast- 
ing benefit  of  that  individual,  and  of  all  other  rational 
creatures  not  already  given  over  to  destruction.  It 
would  be  a  great  mistake  therefore  to  suppose  that  the 
end  of  an  atonement  for  Peter  was  limited  to  the  par- 
don of  Peter.  Even  as  Peter  himself  was  concerned, 
it  had  the  further  design  to  affect  him  for  ever  as  an 
exhibition  both  of  awful  firmness  in  supporting  the  law 
and  of  amazing  mercy.  He  was  still  to  remain  under 
moral  government  and  the  control  of  motives.  His 
happiness  was  not  to  consist  in  a  release  from  the  re- 
straints of  law,  but  in  living  under  the  dominion  of  the 
everlasting  King,  in  seeing  all  his  rights  secured,  in 
contemplating  his  astonishing  grace,  and  in  being 
urged  by  competent  motives  ;to  unceasing  love,  obe- 
dience, and  praise. 

But  the  atonement  for  Peter  had  a  further  end.  It 
was  intended,  (according  to  the  dialect  which  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  use,)  favourably  and  eternally  to  affect  all 
other  moral  agents  not  already  given  over  to  destruc- 
tion. The  fundamental  principle  in  which  lay  the 
necessity  of  an  atonement  was,  that  not  even  the  elect 
eould  be  pardoned  unless  the  whole  universe  were 


292  REASONS  FOR  THE  [PART  IK 

made  to  see  that  the  law  was  not  to  be  given  up. 
This  conviction  must  be  spread  that  God  might  still 
by  sufficient  motives  support  his  empire  over  the  ra- 
tional creation :  and  that  empire  he  wished  still  fur- 
ther to  strengthen  by  vast  discoveries  of  his  grace. 
As  Ruler  of  the  whole  universe,  perhaps  of  more 
worlds  than  there  are  dusts  in  this,  and  looking  for- 
ward to  an  eternal  reign,  he  did  not  limit  his  view  to 
the  deliverance  of  a  part  of  Adam's  race.  When  that 
was  done  he  had  just  begun  his  course.  He  wished 
to  hold  out  the  unchangeable  authority  of  his  law,  and 
the  infinite  benignity  of  his  government,  to  affect  the 
intelligent  universe  to  eternity). 

— ++~* — 


CHAPTER  XV. 

REASONS  FOR  AN  ATONEMENT  FOR  THOSE  WHO  PERISH. 

There  is  a  loud  call  made  upon  us  for  these  rea- 
sons. Were  we  at  all  straitened  for  an  answer,  we 
might  silence  the  demand  by  asking,  what  reasons  for 
the  offer  to  those  who  perish  ?  This,  you  say,  is  made 
that  God  "  may  do  what  is  agreeable  to  his  own  most 
holy  nature,  and  that  it  may  be  made  fully  to  appear 
how  great  is  the  malignity  and  obstinacy  of  those 
whom  he  punishes."  Had  we  no  other  reason  to  give 
for  the  provision  on  which  the  offer  is  founded,  you 
ought  not  to  complain. 

But  really  there  was  no  chance  for  a  limited  and 
absolute  atonement  without  consequences  at  which  we 
shall  all  revolt.  If  the  whole  provision  was  made  in 
that  open  and  visible  manner  which  was  necessary  to 
give  it  an  operation  upon  public  law,  there  was  no 


CHAP.  XV.]  GENERAL  FROVISION,  293 

Way  of  limiting  it  but  by  calling  a  part  of  the  race  by 
name.  This  is  not  all.  If  it  was  provided  for  moral 
agents,  it  was  not  provided  for  creatures  viewed  as 
related  to  regeneration,  for  this  change  is  wrought 
upon  passive  receivers.  By  the  capacity  which  moral 
agents  possess,  they  have  in  themselves,  without  the 
Spirit,  a  complete  foundation  for  all  the' treatment 
which  might  be  rendered  to  independent  beings,  and 
no  less  a  foundation  for  merciful  than  for  punitive 
treatment.  Being  thus  complete  entities  in  them- 
selves, as  distinguished  from  the  passive  character, 
God,  if  he  acts  according  to  truth,  will  shape  and  car- 
ry forward  the  measures  which  relate  to  them  without 
noticing  in  his  outward  dispensation  the  other  cha- 
racter. If  then  in  providing  an  atonement  he  must 
have  called  a  part  by  name,  he  must  have  said  to  Saul 
of  Tarsus,  without  any  reference  to  his  regeneration, 
For  you,  bloody  as  you  are,  this  atonement  is  abso- 
lutely provided,  and  do  what  you  will  you  shall  never 
be  punished,,  Not  a  word  about  his  repenting  or  be- 
lieving, for  that  would  have  been  a  conditional  atone- 
ment. And  to  Simon  Magus  he  must  have  said,  There 
is  no  atonement  for  you  ;  and  should  you. repent,  and 
believe  in  an  atonement  for  others,  still  you  cannot  be 
pardoned.  A  limited  and  absolute  atonement  pub- 
licly provided  for  moral  agents,  must  have  divided  the 
race  in  this  way.  To  the  non-elect  it  would  have 
been  the  same  as  to  the  damned,  and  to  the  elect  a 
prostration  of  all  moral  government. 

But  all  this  is  not  giving  the  reasons.  There  is  no 
difficulty  however  in  doing  this  provided  God  can  ex- 
press his  benevolence  in  the  treatment  of  agents  by 
itself,  and  we  are  allowed  to  ascribe  to  the  Moral 
Governour.  without  reference  to  the  Sovereign  Effi- 
cient Cause,  a  benevolent  design.  This  is  really  the 
2JB2 


294  REASONS  FOR  THE  [PART  II* 

dialect  in  which  we  ought  to  speak  of  the  subject,  and 
the  only  one  which  does  justice  to  the  God  of  love. 

In  this  dialect  then  1  shall  name  two  ends,  the  one 
immediate  and  the  other  ultimate.  The  immediate 
end  was  the  pardon  of  all  indiscriminately  to  whom 
the  Gospel  was  to  be  sent ;  the  ultimate  end  was  to 
manifest  divine  grace  in  this  merciful  and  sincere 
treatment  of  a  world,  and  thus  to  fill  the  universe  with 
motives  for  the  eternal  benefit  of  all  rational  creatures 
not  already  given  over  to  destruction. 

(1.)  The  immediate  end.  In  this  dialect,  in  which 
elect  and  non-elect  are  unknown,  we  must  give  the 
same  reason  for  an  atonement  for  Simon  Magus  as  for 
Peter,  to  wit,  a  direct  regard  to  his  deliverance  from 
the  curse.  To  neither  was  it  an  expression  of  electing 
love,  (for  election  lay  in  another  department,)  but 
only  of  that  common  benevolence  which  God  feels  to- 
wards all  his  creatures.  There  was  in  this  thing  as 
complete  an  exercise  and  expression,  (for  the  latter 
without  the  former  would  have  been  feigned,)  of  com- 
mon benevolence  to  Simon  Magus,  as  there  is  of  ma- 
ternal feeling  where  a  mother  runs  to  catch  a  falling 
infant.  There  was  a  difference  as  to  the  expected  re- 
sult, because  God  was  omniscient.  But  his  benevo- 
lence for  Simon  was  as  real  as  the  affection  of  the 
mother,  and  this  was  as  natural  and  unerring  a  way  to 
express  the  one  as  her  haste  the  other.  At  least  he 
has  warned  the  universe  to  consider  his  merciful  treat- 
ment of  the  wicked  as  the  organ  by  which  his  benevo- 
lence is  expressed.  No  language  which  is  adapted  to 
our  finite  minds  can  completely  express  the  Infinite  : 
but  in  such  imperfect  language  as  we  possess  we  must 
say,  if  we  would  express  the  truth  to  common  appre- 
hensions, that  the  Moral  Governour  7villed  not  that 
Simon  M  should  perish,  but  that"  he  "  should  <K>me  to 


GHAP.  XV.]  GENERAL  PROVISION.  295 

repentnnce."  Tell  me  then  why  the  mother  ran  to 
catch  hee  falling  infant,  and  I  will  tell  you.  ii.  language 
consecrated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  why  God  provided  an 
atonement  for  Simon. 

Some  are  for  limiting  the  end  of  this  provision  to 
the  ultimate  end.  But  this  is  saying  that  the  universe 
were  to  be  instructed  and  affected  by  an  insincere 
show  of  mercy  to  Simon.  This  merciful  treatment  was 
no  more  exclusively  designed  to  send  out  motives  to 
others,  than  the  punitive  treatment  which  he  receiv- 
ed. Both  were  intended  for  this  end  ultimately,  but 
both  had  an  end  which  immediately  respected  the 
subject.  There  was  in  him  as  perfect  a  foundation  to 
support  the  privilege  of  an  atonement,  as  to  sustain  a 
punishment  for  rejecting  it.  His  capacity  made  it  as 
proper  for  God  to  provide  the  privilege  for  him,  (just 
as  though  he  was  likely  to  use  it  without  the  Spirit,) 
as  for  God  to  punish  him  for  not  using  it,  The  mercy 
then,  no  less  than  the  punishment,  may  be  contem- 
plated as  lying  between  God  and  Simon,  and  as  being 
expressive  of  the  divine  character  in  its  direct  aspect 
upon  him. 

(2.)  The  ultimate  end.  This  was  to  exhibit  God 
and  fill  the  universe  with  motives,  benevolently  in- 
tended to  affect  Simon  and  all  other  rational  creatures 
not  already  given  over  to  destruction. 

As  the  authority  of  the  law  was  concerned,  we  have 
already  seen  the  necessity  of  a  general  provision,  as 
without  prostrating  the  law  it  was  impossible  to  divide 
the  inhabitants  of  the  same  world.  And  as  the  honour 
of  mercy  was  respected,  a  provision  for  the  whole 
would  manifestly  do  more  than  a  provision  for  a  part. 
The  highest  exhibition  of  this  attribute  that  could  be 
made  in  the  pure  treatment  of  agents,  was  here  to  be 
"brought  forth,      Over  this  entire  world  the  Moral  Go- 


29Q  REASONS  FOR  THE         [FART  Ih 

vernour  wished  to  extend  the  sceptre  of  his  grace,  and 
to  send  out  hence  a  report  which  should  fill  other  worlds 
with  motives  to  love  and  praise  him  to  eternity.  The 
universe  itself  was  to  feel  the  effects  of  Calvary  for 
ever. 

And  now  if  you  ask  what  was  gained  by  this  gene- 
ral provision,  my  answer  is,  it  gave  that  glorious  Sove- 
reign who  fills  the  public  throne  of  the  universe,  not 
the  cabinet  of  private  decrees,  who  governs  his  sub- 
jects by  motives,  not  by  mechanical  force,  whose  bu- 
siness during  a  state  of  probation  is  to  express  their 
duties,  not  their  destinies,  to  provide  privileges,  not  to 
constrain  their  acceptance  ;  it  gave  .him  an  opportunity 
tocome«out  to  this  entire  world  with  his  renovated  law, 
with  new  favours  in  his  hands,  with  new  claims  to  the 
homage  and  gratitude  «of  men,  with  new  splendours 
around  his  throne,  with  a  sceptre  dipt  in  blood,  sure  to 
bring  more  glory  to  himself,  more  confusion  to  his 
enemies,  and  more  good  to  the  universe.  It  gave  him 
a  chance  to  add  one  proof  of  his  inflexible  adherence 
to  his  law  which  no  other  circumstance  could  furnish, 
a  practical  declaration  that  transgressors  should  not 
escape  though  his  own  Son  had  died  for  them.  It  gave 
him  on  whom  devolves  the  task  of  punishing  the  wick- 
ed, an  opportunity  to  prove  that  he  does  not  delight  in 
their  misery,  to  acquit  himself  in  a  double  sense  of  their 
blood,  and  to  make  this  appeal  through  heaven,  earth, 
and  hell,  "  What  could  have  been  done  more  to  my 
vineyard  that  I  have  not  done  in  it  V  It  gave  him  a 
chance  to  come  into  contact  with  subjects  in  a  new  re- 
lation, and  such  a  relation  as  subjects  will  never  again 
sustain  to  eternity, — that  of  creatures  wading  to  perdi- 
tion through  the  blood  of  Christ  expressly  shed  for 
their  redemption,  and  a  compassionate  Sovereign 
^landing  over  them  and  urging  and  beseeching  them 


SHAP.  XV. J  GENERAL  PROVISION.  297 

to  live.  This  exhibition  of  character,  both  human 
and  divine,  will  bring  an  inconceivable  amount  of 
additional  lustre  to  a  throne  of  mercy,  as  well  as  to 
a  tribunal  of  justice. 

The  establishment  of  this  more  benignant  and  glo- 
rious empire  over  a  world  of  moral  agents,  became  the 
personal  interest  of  Christ,  as  the  universal  govern- 
ment, and  this  part  among  the  rest,  belonged  to  his 
stipulated  reward.  From  the  form  of  the  dominion  as 
it  appears  in  his  hands,  we  know  that  this  part  was  in- 
cluded in  the  covenant.  Besides  a  power  to  quicken 
whom  he  will,  he  holds  a  beneficent  empire  over  a 
world  of  moral  agents,  founding  his  claims  on  their 
capacity,  and  treating  them  indiscriminately  as  under 
a  dispensation  of  grace.  Had  we  no  other  evidence 
of  this,  the  second  and  third  chapters  of  Revelation 
would  furnish  enough.  As  surely  then  as  he  was  in- 
fluenced by  "  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him,"  the 
erection  of  this  dominion  was  one  of  the  motives  which 
urged  him  to  the  cross,  * 

We  must  not  therefore  suppose  that  the  salvation  of 
the  elect  was  the  sole  reward  or  motive  of  Christ. 
This  new  relation  of  a  world  of  moral  agents,  and  the 
administration  of  a  benign  government  over  the  wholef 
are  two  items  which  must  be  added  to  the  account. 

But  does  this  addition  diminish  the  believer's  com- 
fort ?  It  is  so  said.  "  This  doctrine  of  a  general  atone- 
ment takes  away  from  the  true  believer  one  of  the 
most  interesting  and  edifying  views  of  this  event  which 
can  be  presented  to  him.  When  he  contemplates  the 
death  of  Christ,  he  beholds  the  most  striking  and 
affecting  manifestation  of  the  peculiar  love  of  God  to 
him.  But  if  the  atonement  be  as  much  for  those  who 
are  reprobates  as  for  him,  how  is  it  an  evidence  of  any 
great  or  special  lo\e  ?  It  is  no  ground  of  consolation 


298  GENERAL  PROVISION  [PART  II* 

to  know  that  Christ  loved  me  and  gave  himself  forme, 
because  the  reprobate  may  know  the  same."  Per- 
petually confounding  the  atonement  with  the  higher 
ransom.  We  acknowledge  that  Christ  "  gave  him- 
self" in  a  peculiar  sense  for  the  elect,  and  obtained 
their  salvation  as  the  reward  of  that  active  virtue.  And 
there  is  on  our  plan  undiminished  reason  for  all  those 
grateful  and  triumphant  feelings  which  an  Owen  was 
so  zealous  to  cherish.  But  is  the  death  of  Christ  "  no 
consolation"  to  me  because  he  atoned  for  others  ?  Am 
I  so  bent  on  monopolizing  the  whole  influence  to  my- 
self? And  is  it  "  no  consolation"  that  he  has  thrown 
around  his  Father's  sceptre  a  splendour  of  mercy  which 
sends  its  radiance  even  to  the  gates  of  hell  ? 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  PROVISION  NOT  INCIDENTAL  BUT 
PURPOSELY  INTENDED. 

Some  have  said  that  the  influence  of  the  atonement 
upon  the  non-elect  was  merely  casual,  and  arose  from 
their  living  in  the  same  world,  and  under  the  same  law, 
and  possessing  the  same  nature  with  the  elect,  and  the 
same  world  and  nature  in  which  Christ  suffered,  and 
the  same  law  under  which  he  lived,  and  from  the  ne- 
cessary sufficiency  of  his  merit,  resulting  from  his  infi- 
nite dignity  and  worth.  But  by  whatever  means  the 
atonement  acquired  this  influence,  certain  it  is  that  it 
was  the  determinate  purpose  of  God  that  it  should  pos- 
sess it,  not  because  it  could  not  be  avoided,  but  to  ex- 
press his  unfeigned  benevolence,  and  to  answer  the  im- 
portant ends  of  a  moral  government. 


We  say  that  God  designed  the  atonement  for  all. 
What  do  we  mean  ?  Not  that  he  intended  to  make  all 
partakers  of  tne  benefit  by  an  operation  upon  them  as 
passive ;  but  that  he  designed  by  its  influence  so  to 
change  their  relations  as  moral  agents,,  that  should  they 
hear  the  Gospel  and  believe,  he  r.onld  pardon  them  all 
without  injuring  the  law,  and  that  a  foundation  should 
thus  be  laid  for  a  fair  and  reasonable  offer,  and  pro- 
mise, and  command  to  all ;  and  furthermore,  that  he  in- 
tended to  send  the  Gospel  into  the  world,  which  but 
for  the  depravity  of  men  would  spread  like  lightning 
to  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  earth ;  and  that  he  deter- 
mined to  force  its  way  to  millions  who  would  never  be 
sanctified,  and  thus  to  place  in  their  hands  a  means  of 
pardon  which  they  should  be  under  obligations  to  im- 
prove for  their  everlasting  good.  That  all  who  hear 
the  Gospel  have  the  benefit  so  within  their  reach  that 
they  could  make  it  their  own  by  doing  their  duty,  and 
are  bound  to  make  it  their  own,  I  shall  now  assume. 
The  question  then  is,  whether  God  determined  it  should 
be  so, — whether  as  Moral  Governour  he  had  any  pur- 
pose to  answer  by  putting  the  privilege  into  the  hands 
of  those  who  were  never  to  be  sanctified,  or  whether 
he  did  it  incidentally  through  their  relation  to  the  com- 
mon world,  the  common  nature,  and  common  law.  We 
say  he  had  important  purposes  to  answer,  and  did  it 
with  fixed  design,  to  gratify  his  benevolence,  and  to 
accomplish  the  same  ends  that  are  attained  by  other 
mefsi  res  of  a  moral  government.  And  we  allege  that 
the  fact  of  his  having  done  it  affords  the  same  evidence 
of  a  settled  purpose,  that  the  existence  of  creatures 
does  of  a  previous  design  to  create. 

It  ought  not  to  escape  attention  that  the  privilege 
is  fastened  upon  them  by  a  law  commanding  them 
to  believe  :  for  without  the  command  it  would  not  be 


300  GENERAL  PROVISION  [PART  II. 

a  privilege  in  the  estimation  of  a  moral  government,  as 
it  would  not  be  a  means  of  happiness  which  they  would 
be  under  obligations  to  improve  for  their  good.  The 
question  then  is,  whether  that  law  was  given  them  in- 
cidentally,— whether  the  privilege  was  thus  authorita- 
tively thrust  into  their  hands,  not  with  fixed  design,  to 
answer  the  purposes  of  a  moral  government,  but  casu- 
ally, through  their  connexion  with  the  common  world, 
the  common  nature,  and  common  law.  How  will  this 
matter  appear  at  the  judgment  of  the  great  day  ?  When 
they  shall  be  arraigned  one  by  one,  and  punished  se- 
verally for  rejecting  the  privilege,  will  it  then  seem 
that  the  talent  was  not  intentionally  committed  to  them 
as  their  Lord's  servants,  but  casually  fell  upon  them 
as  they  stood  in  the  crowd  ?  By  the  same  rule  you 
might  say  that  all  other  laws  and  mercies  come  to  them 
casually,  and  that  the  Moral  Governour  had  no  end 
at  all  to  answer  by  them  in  a  way  of  favour,  but 
only  found  them  in  his  way  as  he  came  to  treat  with 
others.  But  besides  that  this  wrould  cut  off  every  act 
of  God  from  being  an  expression  of  benevolence  to- 
wards them,  (as  a  favour  done  by  accident  is  no  indi- 
cation of  love,)  I  would  ask,  how  come  they  in  exis- 
tence ?  and  for  what  end  were  they  created?  Were 
they  incidentally  made  ?  or  were  they  brought  into 
existence  for  the  sole  purpose  of  being  damned  ?  As 
Sovereign  Efficient  Cause,  it  is  agreed,  God  had  no  fa- 
vour for  them  or  purpose  to  answer  by  them  :  and  if  as 
Moral  Governour  he  had  no  privilege  to  put  into  their 
hands,  as  an  expression  of  love,  and  to  answer  the  ends 
of  government,  but  only  found  them  in  his  way  as  he 
came  to  bless  others,  I  ask,  who  placed  them  there  ? 
and  for  what  end  ?  In  no  character  has  God  any  favour 
for  them  ;  were  they  created  solely  to  be  damned  ? 
If  you  admit  with  the  Church  at  large  that  the  atoiae- 


t»HAF.  XVII.]  NOT  INCIDENTAL.  301 

ment  was  expressive  of  benevolenco  to  the  non-elect, 
you  must  no  longer  say  that  the  privilege  was  not  in- 
tended for  them,  for  that  would  be  bringing  words 
against  each  other  in  a  flat  contradiction.  Those  who 
have  chosen  to  ascribe  its  influence  upon  this  part  of 
the  race  to  its  sufficiency,  have  still  generally  allowed 
that  its  bearing  upon  them  was  according  to  God's  de- 
terminate counsel,  and  indicative  of  benevolence.  This, 
as  we  shall  see  in  another  place,  was  the  concession  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  even  of  those  members  who  had. 
■he  most  contracted  views  of  the  subject. 


CHAPTER  XVIL 

REPROBATION  AND  THE  ORDER  OF  DIVINE  DECREES. 

In  an  argument  intended  to  prove  that  God  had  ho 
motive  to  provide  an  atonement  for  the  non-elect,  be- 
cause he  had  jio  regard  for  them  even  as  creatures,  but 
"  hated"  them,  a  respectable  writer  proceeds  as  fol- 
lows. "  Some  hope  to  get  over  the  difficulty  by  pla- 
cing the  decree  of  redemption  before  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion. They  conceive  that  God  first  determined  to  give 
his  Son  a  ransom  for  the  whole  human  race,  and  then, 
foreseeing  that  none  would  accept  the  offer  if  left  to 
themselves,  he  elected  a  certain  number  on  whom  he 
determined  to  bestow  the  gift  of  faith.  To  this  theory 
I  object  the  following  things.  (1.)  That  there  is  no 
succession  in  the  divine  decrees,  but  God  wills  all 
things  by  one  most  comprehensive  and  perfect  pur- 
pose. (2.)  Admitting  an  order  in  the  divine  decrees, 
this  order  is  preposterous  ;  because  it  supposes  God 
to  determine  upon  a  most  important  and  costly  means 
2  C 


302  ORDER  OF  [PART  1£. 

before  he  had  proposed  any  particular  end  to  be  ac- 
complished by  it.  Or  if  he  designed  the  salvation  of 
the  whole  world  in  giving  Christ  a  ransom  for  them, 
his  purpose  was  not  accomplished.  (3.)  It  furnishes 
no  sufficient  motive  to  produce  such  a  grand  event. 
(4.)  Or  if  it  be  alleged  that  the  love  which  was  so  ex- 
ceedingly great  had  all  men  for  its  object,  why,  after 
doing  so  much  for  their  salvation,  did  it  become  inef- 
fective and  leave  so  many  of  them  to  perish  for  ever  ? 
—How  can  the  reprobation  of  a  part  be  reconciled 
with  love  so  great  ?" 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  there  is  no  order  of 
time  in  the  divine  mind  ;  but  whether  there  is  not  in 
the  divine  decrees  what  is  called  the  order  of  nature, 
is  another  question.  It  either  is  so  or  it  is  not.  Let 
us  suppose  that  it  is  not.  Then  it  was  the  u  compre- 
hensive purpose"  of  God  to  do  just  as  he  has  done, — 
to  save  the  elect  from  sin  and  death  through  a  Media- 
tor, and  to  send  the  non-elect  to  hell  for  rejecting  a 
Mediator  provided  for  them  as  moral  agents.  And 
what  is  gained  by  this  resort  ?  Let  us  now  take  the 
other  supposition,  viz.  that  there  is  an  order  of  nature 
in  the  divine  decrees.  And  here  I  will  pause  to  show 
that  this  is  certainly  the  case.  First,  there  is  an  or- 
der in  things.  Holiness  in  creatures  is  before  reward, 
sin  is  before  punishment,  ruin  is  before  the  work  of  a 
Redeemer.  Secondly,  there  is  an  order  in  the  divine 
acts,  God  imparts  holiness  before  he  rewards ;  he 
suffers  men  to  sin  before  he  punishes  or  pardons  ;  he 
left  man  to  fall  before  he  sent  a  Redeemer.  If  the 
acts  did  not  follow  each  other  in  this  order  they  would 
not  be  suitable,  and  some  of  them  would  not  be  just. 
On  the  scale  of  creatures  they  succeed  each  other  in 
the  order  of  time ;  and  even  to  God  they  must  follow 
each  other  in  the  order  oi  nature,  or  they  would  not 


CHAP.  XVII.]  DIVINE  DECREES.  303 

appear  to  him  suitable  and  just.  Thirdly,  if  the  acts 
of  God,  even  as  contemplated  by  himself,  follow  each 
other  in  the  order  of  nature,  so  must  his  purposes. 
These  must  take  the  same  order  or  they  would  not  be 
wise,  and  some  of  them  would  not  be  just.  His  pur- 
pose to  make  men  holy,  is  in  the  order  of  nature  be- 
fore his  purpose  to  reward  ;  his  purpose  to  leave  man 
to  fall,  is  in  the  same  order  before  his  design  to  pu- 
nish or  pardon,  or  to  provide  a  Saviour. 

There  is  one  thing  more  to  be  settled  before  I  draw 
the  conclusion.  God's  decrees  concerning  moral 
agents  must  be  distinguished  from  his  decrees  about 
passive  recipients.  We  have  seen  that  the  purposes 
of  the  Moral  Governour  and  those  of  the  Sovereign 
Efficient  Cause  must  not  be  confounded.  Now  whe- 
ther the  decree  of  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause  about 
abandoning  the  non-elect,  was  before  or  after  the  de- 
cree respecting  the  fall  of  man  or  the  atonement,  it  is 
not  at  all  necessary  to  inquire.  Allowing  it  to  have 
been  before  both,  and  the  non-elect  as  passive  recipi- 
ents to  have  been  abandoned  by  a  purpose  prior  to  all 
others,  yet  as  moral  agents  they  still  had  in  them  a 
foundation  to  support  the  privilege  of  an  atonement. 
These  two  characters  both  in  God  and  man  are  so  in- 
dependent of  each  other,  that  a  decree  of  the  Sove- 
reign Efficient  Cause  about  the  passive  could  not  pre- 
vent the  Moral  Governour  from  proceeding  to  provide 
a  privilege  for  the  same  creatures  as  moral  agents,  nor 
from  expressing  in  that  provision  the  unfeigned  bene- 
volence of  the  divine  mind.  Now  when  we  inquire 
about  the  order  of  decrees  on  such  a  subject  as  this, 
we  must  confine  ourselves  to  the  decrees  of  the  Moral 
Governour:  and  a  decree  of  the  Moral  Governour 
about  making  a  creature  miserable,  is  only  a  decree 
about  his  punishment.     The  question  then  is,  whether 


304  ORDER  OP  [PART  1,1. 

the  Moral  Governour  decreed  to  punish  men  for  re- 
jecting a  Saviour,  before  he  decreed  to  provide  a  Sa- 
viour. The  question  answers  itself.  The  Moral  Go- 
vernour had  nothing  to  do  with  men  as  elect  and  non- 
elect,  but  merely  as  moral  agents,  and  in  reference  to  his 
final  treatment  of  them,  as  believers  and  unbelievers. 
And  his  decree  to  punish  any  for  rejecting  a  Saviour, 
must  be  founded  on  his  foreknowledge  that  they  would 
thus  reject.  This  was  all  the  decree  that  the  Moral 
Governour  could  pass  respecting  the  misery  of  those 
who  were  to  hear  the  Gospel. 

This  distinction  between  the  two  characters  of  God, 
founded  on  the  two  independent  characters  of  men, 
would  have  prevented  all  the  disputes  between  the 
Supralapsarians  and  Sublapsarians.  The  former,  had 
not  the  two  characters  been  confounded,  could  not  have 
held  that  the  non-elect  were  created  merely  to  glorify 
justice.  The  rights  of  justice  belong  to  the  Moral 
Governour,  whose  motives  are  to  be  separated  from 
every  question  relative  to  regeneration,  and  who  must 
be  considered  as  directly  aiming  at  the  happiness  of 
those  whom  his  measures  are  calculated  to  serve. 

The  principal  mistake  of  the  above  extract  lies  in 
supposing  that  the  merciful  treatment  of  agents  by  it- 
self was  no  object  or  motive  with  God,  and  no  expres- 
sion or  dictate  of  benevolence.  Allow  this  to  have 
been  an  object  with  him,  and  there  was  motive  enough 
to  induce  him  to  provide  a  privilege  for  those  as  agents 
whom  as  passive  he  had  abandoned.  Allow  this  to  be 
a  dictate  and  expression  of  benevolence,  and  a  provi- 
sion for  agents  could  be  prompted  by  philanthropy 
without  being  accompanied  by  electing  love.  If  the 
Moral  Governour  chose  to  express  the  general  bene- 
volence of  the  divine  mind  towards  certain  objects,  it 
did  not  follow  that  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause  must 
sanctify  them. 


CHAP.  XVII.]  DIVINE  DECREES.  305 

It  is  of  no  consequence  therefore  whether  the  decree 
of  election  or  that  respecting  the  atonement  had  the 
priority,  because  they  were  decrees  of  God  in  two  dis- 
tinct and  independent  characters. 

The  fact  however  appears  to  be,  that  the  decree  of 
the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause  respecting  a  division  of 
character,  (which  was  in  reality  the  decree  of  election 
and  non-election,)  was  subsequent  in  the  order  of  na- 
ture to  his  decree  respecting  the  fall  of  man,  and  to  the 
decree  of  the  Moral  Governour  respecting  the  atone- 
ment. No  distinction  was  decreed  in  the  character  of 
men  in  relation  to  the  fall :  all  fell.  The  division  of 
character  was  ordained  to  be  subsequent  to  this,  and 
subsequent,  as  I  shall  now  show,  to  the  provision  of  a 
Saviour.  When  men  were  all  fallen,  and  doomed  to 
the  curse  of  eternal  abandonment,  not  one  of  them  could 
receive  the  Spirit  but  through  a  Mediator.  Not  one 
of  them  therefore  could  be  elected  to  "  be  holy*'5  un- 
til a  Saviour  was  decreed.  Accordingly  the  earliest 
account  which  we  have  of  election  is,  that  the  objects 
were  chosen  in  Christ :  "  Chosen — in  him  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  ; — predestinated — unto  the 
adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ."  God  hath 
"  called  us  with  a  holy  calling,— according  to  his  own 
purpose  and  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Je- 
sus before  the  world  began."  "According  to  the 
eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus." 
M  Whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the, 
First-born  among  many  brethren}.™ 

This  order  in  God's  decrees,  however,  does  not  im- 
ply that  he  had  not  before  him  the  whole  plan  anterior 
to  the  commencement  of  the  order,  or  that  he  decided 
one  part  without  reference  to  another.     For  instance, 

*  Eph.  1.  4.— t  Rom,  8.  29.  Eph.  1.  4,  5.  &  3. 11.  2  Tim.  1.  9, 
2   C    2 


306  eevENANT  of  [part  h* 

he  saw  that  he  could  glorify  his  justice  in  punishment, 
and  his  grace  in  the  work  of  redemption,  before  he  de- 
creed to  suffer  the  fall  of  man,  and  he  passed  this  de- 
cree with  his  eye  fixed  on  the  measures  which  he  might 
subsequently  adopt.  And  yet  he  could  not  absolutely 
decree  to  punish  or  to  pardon  till  he  had  first  deter- 
mined to  permit  sin. 

The  order  then  seems  _to  have,  been  this.  The 
Sovereign  Efficient  Cause  resolved  to  permit  the  fall 
of  man  :  the  Moral  Guvernour  next  decreed  a  provi- 
sion for  the  whole  human  race :  the  Sovereign  Effi- 
cient Cause  then  decided  how  many  on  the  one  hand 
he  would  incline  to  believe,  and  on  the  other,  not  how 
many  he  would  make  sinners,  but  how  many  creatures 
who  had  forfeited  every  divine  influence  he  would  let 
alone. 

This  being  what  we  consider  the  fact,  we  are  not 
pleased  with  the  term  reprobate,  because  it  seems  to 
imply  that  some  were  excluded  from  a  chance  of  sal- 
vation by  the  limited  provision  of  the  Moral  Govern- 
our,  if  not  from  holiness  by  the  positive  act  of  the 
Sovereign  Efficient  Cause.  We  prefer  the  term  non- 
elect,  because  this  leaves  it  to  be  supposed  that  after 
being  provided  for  they  were  left  to  themselves. 


♦♦» 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


COVENANT  OF  REDEMPTION. 


We  have  discovered  that  "  the  joy — set  before'5  the 
R">  cmer  consisted  ef  three  parts,  the  establishment 
of  a  new  relation  for  a  world  of  moral  agents,  an  ab- 
solute salvation  for  the  elect,  and  the  administration 


CHAP.   XVIH.J  REDEMPTION.  307 

of  the  government  of  the  universe.  These  then  were 
the  three  parts  of  the  reward  promised  him  in  the  co- 
venant of  redemption. 

From  whichever  Person  the  first  proposition  is  con- 
ceived to  have  come,  the  surrender  and  accord  of  the 
Son  must  have  been  substantially  as  follows.  From 
regard  to  thy  law  and  the  human  race,  'I  will  become 
incarnate  and  die,  to  place  salvation  within  the  reach 
of  all  who  hear  the  Gospel ;  and  in  return  I  ask  for 
them  a  state  of  probation  and  a  general  offer  of  mercy. 
This  I  am  willing  to  grant  them  because  I  love  them 
all  and  wish  to  manifest  this  love  to  the  universe.  But 
as  they  will  not  bow  unless  subdued,  I  claim  a  right  to 
sanctify  a  certain  number.  I  expect  also  the  govern- 
ment of  the  universe,  that  I  may  display  thy  glory  in 
the  merciful  treatment  of  a  world  of  moral  agents,  and 
in  the  salvation  of  my  elect.  These  three  parts  are 
my  reward. 

This  is  altogether  different  from  the  offering  of  the 
pearl  as  an  absolute  price  for  a  part  and  in  no  sense 
for  the  rest.  It  is  offering  nothing.  It  is  only  agree- 
ing to  offer,  and  stipulating  about  the  reward.  The 
distinction  between  this  private  covenant  and  the  pub- 
lic transaction  which  constituted  the  whole  atonement, 
may  be  illustrated  thus.  A  regiment  revolts.  The 
colonel  publicly  offers  to  die  for  the  mutineers,  not  to 
shield  them  in  rebellion,  not  to  save  them  from  punish- 
ment whether  they  return  to  duty  or  not,  but  to  give 
them  an  opportunity  to  return  and  live.  This  privi- 
lege is  obtained  for  the  whole  regiment,  but  extends 
no  further.  For  though  the  life  of  the  officer  was 
worth  that  of  all  the  men  in  ten  revolted  regiments, 
and  might  have  answered  for  them  all  if  expressly  of- 
fered for  so  many,  yet  as  it  was  not,  its  influence  was 
limited  to  one.  This  was  all  that  constituted  atone- 
ment in  the  case.  ^/ 

ft    % 


308  THE  WHOLE  [PART  II. 

Now  upon  this  transaction  ingraft  another.  Suppose 
the  general  has  powjer  to  change  the  hearts  of  the  rebels. 
To  gratify  the  benevolence  of  the  generous  victim,  he 
secretly  engages  to  bring  one  half  to  accept  the  offer- 
ed pardon.  This  was  an  essential  part  of  the  motive 
which  induced  the  substitute  to  die.  Sincere  benevo- 
lence to  the  whole,  and  a  wish  to  support  a  vigorous 
and  benign  government,  were  other  parts.  But  if  it 
be  asked  for  whom  atonement  was  made,  the  answer 
is,  for  the  whole  revolted  regiment. 


■     ■»♦» — . 
CHAPTER  XIX. 

OUR   WHOLE    MEANING    AT    ONE    VIEW. 

What  do  we  mean  by  for  when  we  say  that  the 
atonement  was  for  all  ?  Not  that  it  was  for  them  con- 
sidered merely  as  sentient ;  in  other  words,  not  that  it 
was  the  secret  purpose  of  God  to  make  them  all  happy 
by  the  provision  through  an  operation  on  them  as  pas- 
sive ;  but  that  it  was  for  all  as  moral  agents.  When 
we  say  that  it  was  for  all  as  moral  agents,  we  mean 
four  things.  (1.)  That  in  its  actual  influence  it  chang- 
ed the  relations  which  all  as  moral  agents  sustained  to 
the  divine  law.  (2.)  That  it  thus  became,  in  relation 
to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  a  provision  for  moral 
agents,  and  a  real  privilege.  (3.)  That  the  provision 
and  privilege  were  purposely  intended  for  all.  (4.)  That 
the  atonement  was  expressly  offered  for  all. 

(1.)  hi  its  actual  influence  it  changed  the  relations 
which  all  as  j  ;oral  agents  sustained  to  the  divine  law. 
It  removed  .lie  curse  of  abandonment  which  all  as 
•agen.ts  had  incurred,  and  k  rendered  their  pardon  con- 


4   « 


CHAP.  XIX.]  AT  ONE  VIEW.  309 

sistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  on  supposition  that 
they  should  hear  the  Gospel  and  believe.  It  was 
this  change  of  relation  which  laid  the  foundation  for  a 
fair  offer  of  pardon  to  all,  and  for  a  reasonable  com- 
mand to  all  to  make  the  benefit  their  own*. 

(2.)  By  this  means  the  atonement  became,  in  relation 
to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  a  provision  for  moral 
agents.  The  whole  benefit  is  offered  to  them,  and  as 
far  as  can  be  done  before  they  have  performed  their 
part,  is  actually  made  over  to  them  by  covenant,  and 
they  are  commanded  to  receive  it.  This  done,  it  is  a 
complete  provision  for  them  as  moral  agents.  It 
places  pardon  so  within  their  reach  that  they  can  pos- 
sess it  by  only  doing  their  duty,  no  natural  impossi- 
bility lying  in  the  way,  and  nothing  but  a  bad  temper 
for  which  they  are  wholly  to  blame.  Just  as  the  pro- 
vision now  is,  and  not  as  it  would  have  been  had  it 
been  foreseen  that  they  would  believe,  they  are  capa- 
ble of  living  by  it  if  well  disposed,  and  are  bound  to 
live  by  it,  and  cannot  lose  it  without  wickedly  throw- 
ing it  away.  And  it  is  charged  against  them  in  the  ac- 
counts of  a  moral  government  as  an  atonement  for 
them  ;  and  those  who  fail  to  make  it  finally  their  own, 
will  be  eternally  punished  for  that  greatest  of  all  sins* 
Thus  they  are  brought  into  a  salvable  state  and  fairly 
put  upon  probation. 

Now  this  is  all  that  can  be  meant  by  its  being  a  pro- 

*  This  explanation  shows  how  wide  from  the  mark  the  objection  is 
which  is  derived  from  the  nations  who  never  heard  the  Gospel.  Because 
the  relations  of  all  men  were  thus  changed,  it  did  not  follow  that  the 
Gospel  must  be  preached  to  all.  Much  like  this  is  the  objection  that 
when  Christ  died  many  were  in  hell.  So  when  he  died  many  were  in 
heaven  ;  and  according  to  this  objection  he  could  not  atone  for  them, 
nor  was  their  salvation  founded  on  his  death.  But  the  fact  is,  that  he 
virtually  died  the  day  that  Adam  fell,  and  every  thing  proceeded  a> 
though  this  had  actually  been  the  ca?c. 


310  THE  WHOLE  [PART  U. 

vision  for  moral  agents.  If  more  is  meant  it  respects 
men  not  as  agents  but  as  passive  recipients.  If  I  say 
that  sanctification  was  provided  for  men,  I  speak  of  a 
provision  for  them  as  passive.  If  I  say  that  absolute 
salvation  was  provided  for  the  elect,  I  speak  of  some- 
thing prepared  for  them  as  agents,  and  something 
procured  for  them  as  recipients.  But  if  I  speak  of  a 
mere  provision  for  agents,  1  mean  a  provision  which  is 
to  benefit  them  upon  their  acting  the  part  of  agents  to- 
wards it,  and  the  effect  of  which  is  suspended  on  their 
own  conduct.  A  provision  for  moral  agents  as  such, 
cannot  be  otherwise  than  conditional  in  this  sense. 

Now  a  provision  which  thus  affects  all  men,  may  be 
said  to  be  for  all,  in  the  same  sense  as  a  law  is  for 
those  who  refuse  to  obey  it,  or  as  Bibles  and  sabbaths 
are  for  those  who  abuse  them,  or  as  an  estate  is  for  a 
prodigal  son  who  forfeits  or  squanders  the  inheritance. 
It  gives  all  a  fair  chance  to  live  ;  a  fair  chance  being 
where  a  blessing  is  so  brought  within  the  reach  of  an 
agent  that  he  can  enjoy  it  by  doing  his  duty.  It  is  to 
all  a  complete  privilege  ;  privileges  being  only  means 
of  happiness  which  men  are  under  obligations  to  im- 
prove for  their  good.  The  privilege  of  an  atonement 
is  as  completely  brought  to  all,  as  any  advantage  was 
ever  brought  to  a  man  which  he  wickedly  threw  away. 
It  is  as  perfectly  in  their  hands  as  any  privilege  was 
ever  in  the  hands  of  a  man  which  he  failed  to  improve. 
The  whole  advantage  of  an  atonement,  as  far  as  de- 
pends on  -God,  is  as  much  in  the  hands  of  one  as  an- 
other, bating  the  single  circumstance  of  the  gift  of 
faith  ;  and  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject,  for 
we  are  speaking  of  men,  not  as  recipients  of  faith,  but 
as  creatures  bound  to  believe.  It  could  not  have  been 
for  them  as  moral  agents  in  a  higher  sense ;  for  if  a 
higher  sense  is  added,  it  respects  them  not  as  agents 
but  as  passive  receivers,  or  at  most  as  sentient, 
t 


CHAP.  XIX.]  AT  ONE  VIEW.  311 

(3.)  This  influence  upon  all  was  not  incidental,  but 
purposely  intended.  It  was  the  deliberate  design  ot 
the  Moral  Governour  to  put  the  privilege  into  the 
hands  of  all,  from  the  purest  benevolence,  and,  (as  it 
must  be  expressed  in  the  dialect  of  a  moral  govern- 
ment,) with  a  sincere  aim  at  their  good,  as  well  as  to 
manifest  his  mercy  to  the  universe. 

(4.)  The  great  question  remaining  is,  how  came  the 
atonement  to  have  such  an  influence  upon  all  ?  Through 
its  sufficiency,  say  our  brethren  :  and  some  of  them  il- 
lustrate that  sufficiency  by  the  value  of  a  pearl  ex- 
pressly not  offered  for  a  part.  But  we  allege  that  it 
must  have  been  expressly  offered  for  all  as  moral 
agents  to  obtain  such  an  influence.  But  when  we  say 
that  it  was  expressly  offered  for  all  as  moral  agents? 
we  allude  solely  to  the  purpose  declared  in  the  public 
instrument.  We  mean  that  in  the  public  explanation 
accompanying  the  atonement,  it  was  stated  to  be  for 
the  benefit  of  all  as  moral  agents,  that  is,  for  the  use  of 
all  indiscriminately  who  as  agents  would  believe. 

These  four  particulars  comprehend  our  whole  mean- 
ing, and  if  admitted,  plainly  make  out  an  atonement  for 
all  as  moral  agents. 

And  when  we  have  gained  this  point,  we  take  off  all 
restraint  and  say  plainly  that  it  was  for  all ;  because 
in  its  proper  influence  it  was  for  none  but  moral  agents. 
It  spent  all  its  force  upon  their  relations,  and  even  to 
Paul  was  no  more  than  a  provision  for  a  moral  agent. 
And  when  we  have  made  out  that  it  was  expressly  of- 
fered for  all  in  public,  we  throw  away  all  qualifying 
terms,  and  say  unlimitedly  that  it  was  expressly  offer- 
ed for  all ;  because  in  private  it  was  not  offered  for  any. 
The  secret  covenant  between  the  Sacred  Persons 
merely  regulated  Christ's  reward.  It  was  not  this  but 
the  public  explanation  which  gave  to  his  death  that 


312  THE  WHOLE  AT  ONE  VIEW.  [PART  II» 

bearing  upon  public  law  which  was  necessary  to  render 
the  elect  themselves  pardonable.  In  the  latter  then  we 
must  look  for  the  express  purpose.  And  when  we  turn 
our  eye  towards  the  public  instrument,  we  find  the  sa- 
crifice offered  for  none  but  moral  agents,  and  for  all 
indiscriminately,  subject  to  a  conditional  application. 

On  the  question  whether  the  atonement  was  equally 
for  all,  and  in  what  sense  it  was  not ;  when  we  speak 
of  the  secret  purpose  and  motive  of  the  divine  mind, 
and  speak  of  man  as  a  whole,  we  cannot  say  that  it 
was  as  much  intended  for  Simon  Magus  as  for  Paul. 
But  when  we  would  express  the  proper  influence  and 
tendency  of  the  measure  itself,  we  must  speak  of  men  as 
moral  agents  only,  and  then  we  must  pronounce  it  as 
much  for  one  as  another.  Its  influence  upon  all  was 
equal.  It  removed  the  curse  of  abandonment  from 
Simon  as  much  as  from  Paul,  and  rendered  one  as  par- 
donable on  the  supposition  of  his  faith  as  the  other. 
And  this  is  all  that  it  did  for  either.  As  a  privilege  it 
was  equally  designed  for  both  by  the  Moral  Governour, 
and  was,  in  itself  considered,  an  equal  expression  of 
benevolence  to  both  :  and  when  we  use  the  popular  di- 
alect of  a  moral  government,  we  must  say  unqualified- 
ly that  it  was  designed  for  both  alike.  And  certainly 
in  the  express  purpose,  as  it  appears  in  the  public  in- 
strument, there  is  no  discrimination,  no  hint  of  any 
such  distinction  as  elect  and  non-elect.  "  God  so  lov- 
ed the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish." — This 
is  all  we  mean. 


GMAP.  XX.]   HUMAN  AGJNCV  OVERLOOKED.         313 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE    BOTTOM    OF    THE    MISTAKE    LIES    IN    OVERLOOKING 
HUMAN    AGENCY. 

In  all  the  views  which  our  brethren  take  of  the  non- 
elect  in  relation  to  this  question,  they  overlook  their 
existence  as  moral  agents,  and  affirm  the  same  things 
of  them  as  might  be  affirmed  if  they  were  passive 
blocks  under  the  hands  of  the  engraver.  This  is  the 
principal  source  of  the  whole  mistake.  That  it  is 
so  will  appear  from  the  following  aspects  of  their 
system. 

(1.)  When  there  is  an  atonement  which  is  a  com- 
plete provision  for  the  non-elect  as  moral  agents  ;  (one 
which  changed  their  relations  to  the  divine  law,  and 
placed  pardon  so  within  their  reach  that  they  can  en- 
joy it  by  only  doing  their  duty,  and  ought  to  make  it 
their  own,  and  are  commanded  to  do  it,  and  are  pu- 
nished for  not  doing  it ;)  still  they  say  it  was  not  for 
them,  because  it  was  not  the  purpose  of  God  to  dis- 
pose them  to  accept  it  by  an  operation  on  them  as 
passive.  This  is  entirely  burying  up  the  moral  agent, 
and  leaving  nothing  in  the  man  for  an  atonement  to 
respect  when  the  receiver  of  impressions  is  taken 
away.  Further,  when  there  is  an  atonement  which 
spent  all  its  force  on  the  relations  of  moral  agents, 
and  is  nothing  but  a  provision  for  men  in  that  charac- 
ter, still  they  say  it  was  not  for  this  part  of  the  race, 
though  they  allow  that  it  affected  them  in  every  way 
in  which  it  could  affect  mere  moral  agents.  That 
which  is  nothing  but  a  provision  for  moral  agents,  and 
is  allowed  to  have  been  such  to  Simon  Magus,  was  not 
for  Simon  Magus,  because  he  was  not  constrained  t# 

2  D 


314  HUMAN  AGENCY  [PART  II. 

accept  it  by  an  influence  on  him  as  passive.  This  is 
burying  up  his  agency  to  purpose.  Further,  an  atone- 
ment which  was  expressly  offered  in  public  for  this 
part  of  the  race  as  moral  agents,  was  still  not  for  them, 
(though  it  bound  them  to  live  by  it,  and  had  thus  all 
the  attributes  of  a  provision  for  them  as  moral  agents,) 
and  we  must  go  in  search  of  some  unknown  offering 
made  in  secret  for  men  in  another  character.  Thus 
the  pearl  was  not  offered  for  the  900,  though  it  bound 
them  to  come  out,  and  therefore,  unless  the  bond  was 
unjustly  imposed,  was  a  provision  for  them  as  moral 
agents,  and  of  course  must  have  been  offered  for  them 
as  such.  If  in  contemplating  their  rights  as  agents, 
the  principle  was  fixed  between  the  offerer  and  re- 
ceiver that  they  should  not  be  stopt  if  they  attempted 
to  come  out,  and  this  right  was  announced  and  made 
aver  to  them  by  promise,  then  the  pearl  was  offered 
and  accepted  for  them  as  moral  agents  :  and  yet  it  was 
not  offered  for  them,  as  though  a  moral  agent  amount- 
ed to  nothing. 

In  some  of  the  arguments  on  the  other  side  it  is  even 
assumed  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  provision  for 
moral  agents.  They  reason  thus :  if  God  foresees 
that  men  will  reject  the  provision  he  will  not  make  it ; 
and  if  he  makes  it  he  will  not  suffer  them  to  reject  it, 
A  prudent  physician,  say  they,  would  not  prepare  a 
medicine  for  those  who  he  foresaw  would  refuse  it, 
nor  suffer  those  for  whom  it  was  prepared  to  cast  it 
away  if  he  could  alter  their  minds*.  Then  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  a  provision  for  moral  agents.  Or 
rather  the  very  existence  of  moral  agents  is  overlook- 
ed in  such  reasonings  as  this. 

(2.)  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  system  that 

*  Delegates  from  Dreat  m  the  Synod  of  Dort.    Acts  of  Synod,  Part 

in.  P.  207. 


■CHAP.  XX.]  OVERLOOKED,  315 

men  without  the  Spirit  have  no  power  to  believe,  that 
is,  no  capacity  which  can  be  called  a  natural  ability. 
Then  indeed  without  the  Spirit  they  are  not  moral 
agents,  for  capacity,  we  have  seen,  is  the  very  foun- 
dation of  moral  agency.  Accordingly  some  have  the 
consistency  to  deny  that  there  is  in  natural  men  a  pro- 
per basis  of  obligation  without  resorting  to  Adam.  In 
general  they  will  not  admit  the  natural  possibility  of 
the  non-elect's  believing,  nor  even  allow  us  to  make 
the  supposition  of  such  an  event.  From  not  perceiv- 
ing that  their  capacity  is  a  full  foundation  for  the  pro- 
vision of  privileges,  just  as  though  it  was  certain  they 
would  improve  them,  and  enough  to  justify  the  expres- 
sion that  they  can  improve  them,  they  are  unable  to 
see  that  the  non-elect  bear  any  more  relation  to  an. 
atonement  brought  to  their  door  and  offered  to  them, 
than  masses  of  inanimate  matter;  and  often  ask,  of 
what  avail  such  a  provision  without  the  gift  of  faith?  just 
as  they  would  ask,  of  what  avail  a  provision  for  the 
xlead  ?  Of  course  they  will  not  allow  that  it  gives  them 
a  fair  chance  to  live,  or  is  to  them  a  complete  privilege 
though  chances,  (thus  actively  considered,)  and  privi- 
leges, are  predicable  only  of  moral  agents.  Its  being 
for  them  as  moral  agents  is  a  fact  of  great  magnitude 
and  importance,  but  this  is  wholly  sunk. 

(3.)  They  cannot  see  that  the  atonement  expressed 
the  least  benevolence  to  the  non-elect,  any  more  than 
if  it  had  suspended  pardon  on  their  possessing  the  in- 
tellect of  a  Locke  or  the  strength  of  a  Hercules.  They 
do  not  see  that  the  natural  powers  of  men  in  such  a 
case  constitute  a  foundation  for  treatment  by  which 
benevolence  can  be  expressed,  no  less  than  if  pardon 
was  suspended  on  their  stretching  out  the  hand.  And 
this  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  nothing  which  God 
can  do  for  those  who  remain  unsanctified,  can  indicate 
ibenevolence  towards  them.     And  the  next  step  is  to 


316  HUMAN  AGENCY  [PART   II. 

affirm  that  he  has  no  benevolence  towards  them,  not 
even  a  "general  affection  to  them  as  creatures."  And 
then  he  could  have  no  motive  to  make  the  provision  for 
them,  and  it  could  not  be  designed  for  them,  but  must 
have  fallen  out  a  provision  for  them  in  some  incidental 
way,  though  fastened  upon  them  severally  as  such  by 
express  law.  In  short  moral  agents  are  such  abso- 
lute non-entities,  that  God  could  have  no  motive  to 
make  a  provision  for  them  as  such ;  and  therefore  to 
place  the  decree  respecting  the  atonement  before  that 
of  election,  is  to  charge  him  with  resolving  on  a  costly 
measure  without  a  motive. 

(4.)  This  total  sinking  of  moral  agency  appears  in 
their  placing  a  limited  atonement  on  a  level  with  non- 
election,  both  as  to  the  possibility  of  pardon  and  the 
sincerity  of  the  offer. 

First,  as  to  the  possibility  of  pardon.  In  answer  to 
the  objection,  "  If  Christ  died  not  for  me  I  cannot  be 
saved,  because  there  is  no  atonement  for  me,"  it  is 
said,  "  Any  objection  of  this  sort — is  more  directly 
levelled  at  the  doctrine  of  particular  election,  than  at 
that  of  particular  redemption."  "  The  decree  of  elec- 
tion and  reprobation  most  certainly  fixes  the  event  of 
the  salvation  or  damnation  of  every  individual  of  the 
human  race.  And  what  advantage  is  gained  by  sup- 
posing that  Christ  has  made  an  atonement  for  those 
whose  eternal  destiny  to  destruction  is  immutably 
fixed  ?  Wherein  has  this  scheme  the  advantage  over 
the  one  which  we  advocate  ?" 

If  men  were  blocks,  a  decree  not  to  impart  life  to 
them  would  leave  them  in  the  same  condition  as  a  ne- 
glect to  make  a  provision  for  their  use  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  their  living.  And  if  non-election  placed  men 
where  a  limited  atonement  would  have  done,  it  is  be- 
cause they  are  as  powerless  as  blocks.     No  man  for  a 


CflAP*  XX. J  OVERLOOKED*  317 

moment  could  have  supposed  the  two  cases  parallel 
without  forgetting  that  the  non-elect  possess  a  capaci- 
ty to  believe.  The  certainty  that  they  will  perish  is 
indeed  the  same  on  either  plan ;  and  so  it  is  on  the 
bare  supposition  of  foreknowledge.  But  here  lies  the 
difference.  Upon  this  scheme  men  are  debarred  in- 
dependently of  their  own  act;  upon  ours  their  own 
rejection  of  the  Gospel  is  the  ground  of  their  ex- 
clusion. On  one  supposition  the  acceptance  of  the 
benefit  is  a  natural  impossibility,  because  no  benefit 
was  provided  for  them ;  on  the  other,  it  is  perfectly 
easy  for  them  to  Jive  if  only  well  disposed.  This 
difference  could  not  have  been  overlooked  had  not 
the  existence  of  creature  agency  been  buried  from 
view.  And  the  existence  of  that  makes  all  the  dif- 
ference between  a  righteous  moral  government  and 
fate.  That  certainty  which  involves  the  spontaneity 
of  creatures,  is  consistent  with  freedom  and  the  govern- 
ment of  a  just  God  ;  that  certainty  which  is  indepen- 
dent of  their  voluntary  action,  is  fate^  as  despotic  as 
.ever  the  Stoicks  feigned. 

Secondly,  as  to  the  sincerity  of  the  offer.  "  The 
same  objection,"  it  is  said,  "  may  be  made  to  the  sin° 
cerhy  of  offering  salvation  to  those  whom  God  in  the 
■decree  of  election  has  passed  by,  as,  to  those  who  are 
not  included  in  the  decree  of  redemption."  Nothing 
could- render  the  offer  insincere  but  a  natural  impossi- 
bility in  the  way  of  accepting  it.  This  would :  as  the 
offer  of  escape  to  a  prisoner  on  condition  of  his  deci- 
phering a  scrawl  which  really  had  no  meaning,  would 
only  be  sporting  with  his  misery.  Insincerity  placed 
in  any  tking  else,  would  render  all  the  offers  of  an  om- 
niscient God  even  to  the  =elect  insincere,  unless  simul- 
taneously accompanied  by  an  influence  to  consiraia 
ftheir  acceptance*  ^Now  if  a  decree  to  withhold  ihe 
3D2 


318  HUMAN  AGENCr  [PART  II. 

Spirit  rendered  it  as  naturally  impossible  for  the  non- 
elect  to  accept  the  offer  as  the  want  of  an  atonement 
would  have  done,  it  is  because  without  the  Spirit  they 
are  as  powerless  as  statues.  All  that  in  creatures 
which  supports  the  whole  fabric  of  a  moral  govern- 
ment, is  entirely  overlooked  in  such  reasonings  as 
this. 

(5.)  The  same  thing  appears  in  the  confounding  of 
elect  and  non-elect  with  believers  and  unbelievers,  and 
all  these  with  capable  agents.  The  atonement  was  not 
for  Simon  Magus  as  a  capable  agent,  because  it  was  not 
for  him  as  an  unbeliever,  and  therefore  he  was  exclu- 
ded as  non-elect ;  annihilating  thus  the  capable  agent, 
and  making  him  as  passive  in  his  unbelief  as  in  his 
non-election.  If  unbelief  had  been  as  essential  to 
him  and  as  passively  received  as  complexion,  this 
would  have  been  right.  For  had  the  atonement  not 
been  offered  for  people  of  his  colour,  you  might  have 
said  with  truth  that  it  was  not  for  Simon  as  a  man,  be- 
cause it  was  not  for  a  person  of  such  a  hue,  and  that 
therefore  he  was  excluded  as  one  predestined  to  that 
complexion.  But  to  reason  thus  about  his  unbelief,  is  to 
reduce  him  from  an  accountable  being  to  a  passive 
tablet,  and  the  moral  government  over  him  to  inexora- 
ble fate. 

In  like  manner  they  make  it  the  same  thing  for  an 
atonement  to  be  for  Paul  as  a  believer  and  for  Paul  as 
elect;  and  because  they  understand  it  to  have  been 
for  him  absolutely  as  elect,  they  say  it  was  for  him  ab- 
solutely as  a  believer.  But  this,  unless  his  own  act  in 
believing  is  reduced  to  nothing,  is  saying  that  it  was 
for  him  absolutely  on  the  condition  of  his  faith. 
But  they  exclude  the  condition,  and  thereby  reduce 
hi>  own  act  to  nothing.  It  might  have  been  absolute- 
ly for  one  as  a  white  man.  because  he  has  no  agency 


CHAP.  XX. J  OVERLOOKED!  319 

in  forming  his  own  complexion  ;  but  to  say  thai,  it  was 
absolutely  for  Paul  as  a  believer,  is  to  annihilate  the 
moral  agent  and  leave  nothing  but  the  passive  receiver 
of  faith. 

(6.)  The  same  thing  appears  in  the  opposition  which 
is  made  to  the  dialect  of  a  moral  government,  as  sa- 
vouring too  much  of  legality  for  the  reign  of  grace  and 
the  Spirit ;  though  it  is  the  only  language  in  which 
the  duties,  rights,  and  relations  of  moral  agents  can  be 
expressed.  This  may  be  exemplified  in  the  mark  of  pro- 
scription set  upon  conditio?!  and  probation.  The  things 
denoted  by  these  terms,  we  have  seen,  must  accompa- 
ny moral  agents,  the  one  until  they  are  fixed  in  happi- 
ness or  misery,  the  other  as  long  as  their  existence  re- 
mains :  and  nothing  but  the  habit  of  burying  from  view 
this  character  of  men  seems  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  opposition  made  to  the  terms.  This  cause  comes 
out  more  fully  in  some  of  their  reasonings  about  the 
things.  "  If  he  died  for  them  only  on  some  condition, 
then  if  that  condition  never  takes  place  he  did  not  die 
for  them."  What  more  could  be  said  if  they  were 
stocks  ?  On  this  principle  nothing  can  be  done  for 
mere  moral  agents  more  than  for  clods,  and  their  ra- 
tional powers,  separate  from  the  Spirit,  are  no  proper 
basis  to  support  the  measures  of  a  moral  government. 
Nothing  can  be  done  for  a  clod  that  is  not  done  for  it 
as  passive,  because  it  is  nothing  but  passive.  And 
this  reasoning  assumes  that  nothing  can  be  done  for  a 
man  unless  it  is  made  effectual  by  an  operation  on  him 
as  passive  ;  thus  sinking  his  active  nature  altogether. 

It  is -not  difficult  to  see  by  what  habits  of  thinking 
great  and  good  men  have  fallen  into  this  mistake* 
They  have  fixed  their  eyes  so  steadily  on  secret  de- 
crees and  the  passiveness  of  men,  and  pondered  so 
•■rauch  on  faith  as  "  the  gift  of  God,"  and  so  little  on 


32G  IMPORTANCE  OF  [PART  II. 

faith  as  the  duty  and  act  of  the  creature,  that  they  have 
lost  sight  of  moral  agents  and  a  moral  government.  In 
particular  the  idea  of  reprobation  has  so  fastened  it- 
self upon  their  minds,  that  they  have  been  unable  to 
ascribe  to  God  in  any  character  a  serious  aim  to  pro- 
vide the  means  of  salvation  for  the  non-elect.  In  this 
way  they  have  lost  those  discoveries  of  divine  benevo- 
lence which  are  made  in  the  treatment  of  agents  by  it- 
self. But  let  them  turn  their  eye  full  upon  the  rational 
faculties  of  man,  and  familiarize  to  their  minds  the 
operations  of  God  in  that  independent  character  m 
which  he  stands  related  to  moral  agents,  and  they  will 
find  a  new  world  opened  to  their  view,  and  will  see 
that  one  very  interesting  part  of  the  divine  manifesta- 
tions has  been  lost.  And  then  they  will  easily  admit 
•the  views  of  a  moral  government  which  their  brethren 
entertain,  without  renouncing  election  and  special 
grace,  and  will  find  nothing  in  a  general  atonement 
4o  weaken  the  security  of  believers  or  the  special  love 
of  God  to  the  elect.  And  if  any  thing  is  gained  bjr 
.these  views,  it  is  .certain  that  nothing  will  be  lost. 

— ^4-# — 


CHAPTER  XXL 

THE    IMPORTANCE    OF     CORRECT    LANGUAGE    ON    THE 
SUBJECT. 

If  the  atonement  was  for  all  men  as  moral  agents, 
•it  is  proper  to  say  unlimitedly  that  it  was  for  alL 
Whatever  is  true  of  the  moral  agent,  may  be  affirmed 
unqualifiedly  of  the  man.  Whatever  is  predicable  of 
a  person  either  in  his  active  or  passive  character,  we 
aifirm  unlimitedly  of  that  individual,  leaving  it  to  the 


«HAR  XXI.]         CORRECT  LANGUAGE.  3.21 

predicate  to  determine  whether  it  respects  him  as  an 
agent  or  a  recipient.  Thus  we  say  of  the  man  that 
he  is  under  obligations,  that  he  enjoys  privileges,  that 
he  is  good  or  bad,  that  he  is  entitled  to  reward  or  punish- 
ment; all  which  is  true  of  him  as  an  agent.  Thus  we 
say  of  the  man  that  he  was  elected  or  not  elected,  that 
he  has  been  regenerated  or  not  regenerated  ;  all  which 
is  true  of  him  as  a  recipient.  In  like  manner  we  say  of 
a  man  that  he  is  wise,  of  a  woman  that  she  is  beauti- 
ful, of  a  house  that  it  is  white,  or  that  it  is  capacious  ; 
leaving  it  to  be  gathered  from  the  predicates  whether 
the  former  attributes  belong  to  the  body  or  mind,  and 
whether  the  latter  appertain  to  the  covering  or  the  in- 
terior of  the  building.  If  then  the  atonement  is  for  all 
men  as  moral  agents,  it  is  proper  to  affirm  without  li- 
mitation that  it  is  for  all.  And  if  it  is  right  to  assert 
unqualifiedly  of  men  what  is  true  of  them  as  moral 
agents,  it  is  proper  to  affirm  unlimitedly  of  God  what 
is  true  of  him  as  Moral  Governour,  leaving  it  to  the  pre- 
dicates to  determine  in  what  character  they  respect 
him.  And  this  is  the  way  in  which  he  is  spoken  of 
throughout  his  word. 

In  this  way  we  must  speak  or  depart  from  the  esta- 
blished use  of  language,  and  either  utter  an  implied 
falsehood,  or  fall  into  tautology.  The  atonement  was 
a  measure  as  exclusively  adapted  to  agents  as  law  it- 
self. Try  then  the  principle  by  the  case  of  a  law. 
We  say  unqualifiedly  that  such  a  law  was  made  for  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  That  is  correct.  But  if  in 
reference  to  their  double  character,  we  say  that  it  was 
made  for  them  in  a-  certain  sense,  we  utter  an  implied 
falsehood,  for  it  was  made  for  them  as  completely  as  a 
law  could  be  made  for  any  people.  If  we  say  it  was 
made  for  them  as  agents,  we  use  tautology,  (such  as  I. 
have  been  obliged  to  use  through  this  wl)C>ie  treatise,) 


■322  IMPORTAx\CE   OF  [PARTJI. 

for  no  law  can  be  made  for  men  in  any  other  character. 
But  when  a  law  or  an  atonement  is  made  for  men  as 
agents,  to  say  unqualifiedly  that  it  was  not  made  for 
them,  because  they  are  not  prevented  from  abusing  if. 
by  another  power  operating  upon  them  as  passive,  is 
something  more  than  an  implied  falsehood,  it  is  ex- 
pressly untrue.  The  same  when  we  speak  of  the  de- 
sign of  God.  To  say  that  he  did  not  design  his  law 
for  Ahab,  because  he  did  not  intend  by  sanctifying  influ- 
ence to  render  it  an  ultimate  blessing  to  him,  is  mani- 
festly false.  And  it  is  the  same  when  we  say  that  he 
did  not  design  the  atonement  for  Ananias  and  Sap- 
phi  ra. 

That  language  should  be  employed  which  expresses 
the  truth  on  the  subject.  If  God  has  provided  an 
atonement  for  all,  we  ought  to  say  so,  that  he  may 
have  the  glory,  and  that  men  may  know  their  privi- 
leges and  their  hopes. 

So  far  as  the  dispute  is  verbal,  a  phraseology  ought 
aot  to  be  adhered  to  which  does  not  express  the  truth. 
And  how  far  it  is  verbal,  is  a  question  of  some  impor- 
tance. Now  our  brethren  in  detail  admit  all  that  we 
ask.  This  they  do  as  often  as  they  say  that  Christ 
died  "  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  pe- 
rish ;"  and  as  often  as  they  allow  that  all  may  enjoy 
the  benefit  by  believing,  and  are  bound  to  make  it 
their  own.  And  yet  when  they  come  to  general  pro- 
positions, they  contradict  the  one  which  we  support, 
and  distinctly  say  that  the  atonement  was  not  for  all. 
This  is  because  they  do  not  attach  to  the  general  pro- 
position the  same  meaning  that  we  do.  And  the  rea- 
son of  this  is,  they  are  not  agreed  with  us  as  to  the  cha- 
racter in  which  men  are  to  be  spoken  of  in  this  matter. 
We  contend  that  they  ought  to  be  spoken  of  as  moral 
agents ;  they  speak  of  them  continually  as  passive  re- 


CHAP.  XXI. ]        CORRECT  LANGUAGE".  323 

ceivers.     In  general  they  do  not  mean  to  deny  what 
really  is  meant  by  the  atonement's  being  for  all  as  mo- 
ral agents,  but  they  so  annihilate  agents  as  to  make 
no  account  of  this.     When   therefore  we  say  that  it 
was  for  Simon  Magus,  (meaning  that  it  was  for  him  as 
a  capable  agent,)   they,  though  they  allow   what  we 
mean,,  refuse  to  use  our  language,  and  say  decidedly 
that  it  was  not  for  him,  because  they  overlook  his  agen> 
cy,  and  speak  of  him  as  merely  sentient  and  passive. 
The  proposition   that  it  was  for  him,  has  a  different 
meaning  with  them  from  what  it  has  with  us,  because 
they  see  him  not  as  an  agent.     And  if  they  could  see 
him  as  an  agent,  so  as  to  attach  the  same  meaning  to 
the  proposition  that  we  do,   they  would  not  deny  it. 
So  far  the  dispute  is  verbal.    But  the  mistake  lies  deep* 
er  than  words,  and  consists  in  overlooking  the  natural 
ability  of  man.     This  is  the  bottom  of  the  difficulty. 
Though   therefore  there    is  much   logomachy   in   the 
contest,  yet  if  we  are  right  our  brethren  labour  under 
a  real  mistake.     On  a  subject   where  they  ought  to 
speak  of  men  exclusively  as  moral  agents,  they  con- 
stantly reason  about  them  as  though  they  were  passive 
tablets,  no  more  capable  of  believing  than  the  clods  of 
the  valley.     And  when   they  refer  to  the  purpose  of 
God  in  this  provision,   they  constantly  speak  of  him 
only  as  intending  or  not  intending  to  make   impres- 
sions on  passive  recipients.     This  is  plainly  turning 
the  Moral  Governour  out  of  a  transaction  which  was  ex- 
clusively his  own,  and  transferring  the  whole  business 
to  the  Sovereign  Efficient  Cause.     This  has  been  the 
grand  mistake  of  Calvinists  of  the  type  of  a  part  of  the 
Synod  of  Dort.     They  have  reasoned  right  against  the 
Arminians  about  election  and  regeneration,  but  on  se- 
veral points  have  plainly  lost  sight  of  moral  agents  and 
a  jnoral  government.     On  the  other  hand,  the  Armini- 


324  IMPORTANCE    OF  [pARTIi. 

ans  have  had  many  correct  ideas  of  a  moral  govern- 
ment, but  have  been  as  blind  as  Bartimeus  to  all  the 
secrets  of  the  other  department.  And  thus  these  two 
parties  have  gone  on  contending  from  age  to  age,  and 
after  all  both  have  been  right — and  both  wrong. 

This  limiting  phraseology,  mean  what  it  may,  (for 
it  has  different  meanings  in  different  mouths,)  is  far 
from  being  harmless.  Whatever  latent  reservations 
may  lurk  beneath  it,  on  its  face  it  carries  a  wrong 
view  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement  itself,  making  it 
an  absolute  provision  for  a  part  instead  of  a  condition- 
al provision  for  all.  If  it  means,  to  deny  that  the  pro- 
vision was  for  all  as  agents,  tins  is  so  incongruous  with 
the  offer  to  all  as  agents,  and  the  obligations  laid  upon 
all  as  agents  to  live  by  it,  and  the  punishment  of  all  as 
agents  who  reject  it,  that,  in  spite  of  all  explanations, 
it  amounts,  though  unintentionally,  to  an  impeachment 
of  the  sincerity  and  justice  of  God.  If  without  assert- 
ing any  thing  concerning  agents,  it  only  buries  them 
from  view,  even  then,  by  leaving  no  sense  in  which  the 
atonement  could  respect  the  non-elect,  it  carries  men 
to  the  frightful  length  of  denying  that  it  was  any  ex- 
pression of  benevolence  to  this  part  of  the  race,  or 
even  that  God  has  any  benevolence  towards  them,  or 
so  much  as  a  "  general  affection  to  them  as  creatures." 
And  this  takes  from  them  all  reasons  for  gratitude,  ex- 
cept what  is  founded  in  ignorance  of  their  destiny,  and 
leads  all  men  to  doubt,  in  proportion  as  they  hesitate 
about  their  own  election,  whether  they  have  any  cause 
to  thank  God  for  their  existence  or  for  one  of  all  his 
mercies.  If  it  distinctly  admits  what  is  meant  by  an 
atonement  for  all  as  agents,  and  yet  persists  in  affirm- 
ing that  it  was  not  for  all,  it  exactly  annihilates  moral 
agents,  and  that  capacity  on  which  human  obligations 
rest,  and  the  basis  which  supports  the  whole  fabric  of 


-HAP.  XXI.]      CORRECT  LANGUAGE.  3^5 

a  moral  government.  This  is  the  greatest  objection 
of  all.  And  to  make  even  this  more  intense,  the  phra- 
seology in  question  propagates  an  errour  so  disastrous. 
By  means  of  this,  the  plain  portable  position  that  Christ 
did  not  die  for  all,  is  carried  through  the  world,  and 
calls  to  its  support  all  those  reasonings  and  forms  of 
speech  which  conceal  the  foundation  of  human  obliga- 
tions, and  cast  obscurity  over  all  the  relations  and 
principles  of  a  moral  government.  The  world  need  a 
right  phraseology  on  this  subject,  to  familiarize  to  their 
minds  their  own  distinct  and  complete  agency,  their 
obligations,  guilt,  and  privileges,  -and  the  claims  and 
mercies  of  God.  But  the  dialect  in  question  carries  in  it 
a  systematic  concealment  of  human  agency  and  God's 
direct  claims  upon  mankind,  and  is  not  unlike  what  the 
sinner  himself  employs,  when,  filling  his  eye  with  the 
divine  decrees,  he  takes  shelter  in  the  plea  that  he  is  a 
machine.  With  the  better  part  it  does  not  lead  to  a 
denial  of  the  desert  of  punishment,  but  it  obscures  their 
personal  responsibility,  and  sends  them  back  to  Adam 
to  make  out  what  otherwise  would  seem  an  insufficient 
ground  of  condemnation.  It  hides  the  direct  and  per- 
fect claims  which  God  has  upon  rational  creatures  will- 
ing or  unwilling.  To  expose  and  urge  these  claims 
direct,  is  the  best  way  to  make  sinners  and  even  Chris- 
tians feel  their  obligations,  privileges,  and  inexcusa- 
bleness.  It  is  the  deadening  of  this  sense  which.makes 
stupidity. 

A  self  justifying  race  are  sufficiently  prone  to  plead 
that  they  are  machines,  that  God  is  a  hard  master  re- 
quiring more  than  they  are  able  to  perform,  that  they 
are  not  answerable  for  their  impenitence  and  unbelief, 
that  while  the  Spirit  is  withheld  they  have  not  a  fair 
chance  for  salvation,,  and  enjoy  no  privileges,  and  are. 
2  E 


326  IMPORTANCE,  &C  [PART  II. 

under  no  obligations  to  Christ.  And  it  deserves  so- 
lemn consideration  how  far  the  incorrect  language  of 
good  men  on  this  subject,  has  tended  to  confirm  and 
propagate  a  delusion  so  destructive  to  the  souls  of 
men. 


PART  III. 

SCRIPTURAL  VIEW. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PLAN    OF    THE    ARGUMENT. 

All  that  we  have  to  prove  from  the  Scriptures  is, 
that  the  atonement,  where  the  Gospel  comes,  is  a  pro- 
vision for  all  as  moral  agents  ;  that  in  order  to  become 
such,  it  changed  the  relations  which  all  as  moral  agents 
sustained  to  the  divine  law ;  and  that,  to  produce  this 
effect,  it  was  expressly  offered  with  such  an  intent. 

That  is  a  provision  for  a  moral  agent  which  he 
is  capable  of  improving  for  his  good  if  well  dispos- 
ed, and  is  bound  to  improve.  The  obligation  can- 
not be  imposed  without  the  capacity.  We  have  seen 
that  no  bond,  except  by  means  of  deception,  can  be 
laid  on  a  man  to  accept  a  privilege,  which,  from  the 
foreknowledge  that  he  would  not  improve  it,  was  not 
provided  for  him  ;  for  that  would  be  an  obligation.^:© 
perform  an  impossibility.  The  capacity  implies  that 
the  provision  is  made  in  such  a  sense,  that,  just  as  it  now 
is,  he  can  actually  enjoy  it  by  doing  his  duty.  Simon 
Magus,  had  Simon  Magus  believed,  (and  as  the  thing 
was  not  a  natural  impossibility  we  have  a  right  to 
make  the  supposition,)  would  have  found  a  provision 
ready  for  him,  just  as  the  purpose  of  the  atonement 


323  PLAN  OP  the  [part.  in. 

then  stood,  or  he  had  not  a  capacity  to  make  it  his 
own  even  by  believing ;  for  had  he  believed  it  would  not 
have  been  his  own.  The  900  prisoners,  in  the  case 
of  the  pearl  sufficient  for  1000  but  offered  for  100, 
could  not  have  come  out  had  they  accepted  the  offer. 
You  say  it  was  foreknown  that  they  would  not  accept. 
Be  it  so.  Yet  if  the  herald  at  the  door  had  told  them 
that  they  could  then  come  out  by  accepting,  he  would 
have  uttered  a  falsehood ;  for  had  they  attempted  it 
they  would  have  been  stopt.  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  u  If 
you  suppose  one  thing  changed  in  a  series  establish- 
ed by  infinite  wisdom,  you  ought  to  suppose  a  cor- 
responding change  in  the  whole  system  :  if  you  sup- 
pose that  a  non-elect  man  may  believe,  you  should 
suppose  at  the  same  time  that  both  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion and  redemption  correspond  with  this  event,  and 
then  all  difficulty  will  be  removed."  I  have  nothing 
to  do  with  that  supposition.  I  am  speaking  of  men  as 
moral  agents,  whose  capacity  and  freedom  are  not  im- 
paired by  any  decree,  and  whose  faith,  be  decrees 
what  they  may,  we  have  a  right  to  speak  of  as  possi- 
ble. If  we  may  not  speak  of  them  thus,  what  is  their 
capacity  ?  that  of  a  block  :  and  nothing  remains  but 
perfect  fatality.  And  if  we  may  speak  thus  of  the 
non-elect,  (not  as  non-elect  but  as  moral  agents,)  then 
we  may  suppose,  without  reference  to  any  decree, 
what  would  happen  in  case  they  should  believe.  And 
now  it  is  either  true  in  such  a  case  that  they  would 
find  a  provision  ready  for  them,  just  as  the  purpose  of 
atonement  now  stands,  or  else  it  is  not  true  that  they 
have  a  capacit}7  to  use  it  for  their  benefit.  If  they 
cannot  enjoy  it  without  changing  a  decree  of  God,  as 
your  supposition  implies,  the  thing  is  a  natural  im- 
possibility. But  if  they  would  find  a  provision  for 
them  in  case  they  of  their  own  accord  should  believe. 


CHAP.   I.]  ARGUMENT.  329 

then  an  atonement  was  made  for  them  in  such  a  sense 
that  they  can  enjoy  it  by  doing  their  duty.  And  that 
is  a  complete  provision  for  them  as  moral  agents. 

And  if  the  atonement  is  such  a  provision  for  them 
as  moral  agents,  it  certainly  changed  their  relations 
to  the  divine  law,  and  from  a  state  in  which  they  could 
not  be  pardoned  on  any  terms,  brought  them  into  a 
condition  in  which  their  pardon  is  possible,  and  in 
which  nothing  stands  in  the  way  but  their  own  un- 
belief. 

How  the  atonement  came  to  have  this  influence  on 
those  who  remain  unsanctified,  is  another  question. 
Some  ascribe  it  to  its  sufficiency,  others  to  the  express 
purpose  for  which  it  was  offered.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain. No  sufficiency  could  have  produced  this  effect 
which  should  have  left  their  discharge  impossible  even 
on  the  supposition  of  their  faith.  It  could  not  there- 
fore be  such  a  sufficiency  as  is  ascribed  to  the  pearl, 
which,  valuable  enough  to  redeem  1000,  is  offered 
and  accepted  for  100,  leaving  it  impossible  for  the 
rest  to  come  out  even  should  they  accept  the  insidious 
offer.  It  is  not  indeed  necessary  to  that  sufficiency 
that  there  should  have  been  a  secret  purpose  to  make 
■  men  "willing"  by  an  operation  on  them  as  passive; 
but  it  is  necessary  that  the  sacrifice  should  have  been 
understood  to  be  offered  and  accepted  in  such  a  sense 
for  them,  that  should  they  of  their  own  accord  believe 
they  would  be  discharged.  It  must  have  been  offered 
and  accepted  with  an  express  purpose  of  affecting 
their  relations  exactly  in  this  manner,  "  that  whoso- 
ever believeth — should  not  perish."  That  is,  it  must 
have  been  expressly  offered  and  accepted  for  them  as 
moral  agents, 

These  are  the  only  points  necessary  to  be  support- 
2E2 


330  PLAN  Or  THE  ARGUMENT.  [PART  III. 

ed,  and  the  basis  which  I  shall  place  beneath  them  is 
the  word  of  God. 

I  will  begin  at  the  concession  of  the  Synod  ofDort, 
that  the  non-elect  do  not  perish  "  for  want  of  the  sa- 
crifice of  Christ, — nor  through  its  insufficiency,  but  by 
their  own  fault."  This  concession  implies  a  provision 
made  for  them  in  such  a  sense  that  they  can  enjoy  it 
by  doing  their  duty.  It  implies  a  provision  offered  to 
them  with  the  promise  of  pardon  if  they  will  accept  it, 
or  how  is  their  failure  their  own  fault  ?  It  implies  a 
command  to  believe,  or  how  do  they  violate  an  obliga- 
tion ?  And  the  offer,  promise,  and  command,  imply 
that  the  atonement  so  changed  their  relations  as  to 
render  their  pardon  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the 
Jaw  if  they  would  believe.  And  this  it  could  not  have 
done  without  being  expressly  offered  for  them  as  mo- 
ral agents.  After  this  manner  I  shall  construct  my 
argument.  The  whole  may  be  comprised  in  the  four 
following  propositions. 

I.  In  the  offers  and  promises  of  the  Gospel,  the  be- 
nefit of  the  atonement  is  not  only  proposed,  but  actual- 
ly given  and  made  over  to  all  as  moral  agents,  as  far 
as  it  can  be  before  they  have  performed  their  part. 

II.  The  benefit  of  the  atonement  is  so  brought  within 
the  reach  of  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  that  they  are 
bound  to  make  it  their  own,  and  can  enjoy  it  by  only 
doing  their  duty. 

III.  The  atonement  so  changed  the  relations  of  all 
men  to  the  divine  law,  as  to  render  their  pardon  con- 
sistent with  the  honour  of  the  law  in  case  they  hear 
ihe  Gospel  and  believe. 

IV.  The  atonement  was  expressly  offered  and  ac- 
cepted for  all  as  moral  agents. 


CHAP.  II.]       THE   BENEFIT  OFFERED  TO  ALL.  331 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  BENEFIT  OF  THE    ATONEMENT    MADE  OVER  TO  ALL, 

The  first  proposition  is,  that  in  the  offers  and  pro- 
mises of  the  Gospel,  the  benefit  of  the  atonement  is 
not  only  proposed,  but  actually  given  and  made  over 
to  all  as  moral  agents,  as  far  as  it  can  be  before  they 
have  performed  their  part*. 

If  pardon  by  the  atonement  is  really  offered  to  all, 
with  a  promise  that  it  shall  be  theirs  if  they  do  not  cast 
it  away,  then,  (allowing  the  acceptance  not  to  be  a 
natural  impossibility  but  their  duty,)  the  whole  benefit 
ie  made  over  to  them  as  moral  agents,  as  fully  ^s  it 
can  be  before  they  have  performed  their  part.  The 
complete  privilege  of  an  atonement  is  theirs.  And  if 
this  is  the  case  the  matter  is  settled.  There  is  no 
longer  any  need  of  inquiring  about  the  nature  of  the 
expiation,  or  the  express  purpose  for  which  it  was  of- 
fered :  we  find  the  privilege  actually  in  the  hands  of 
all.  God  himself  guarantees  that  the  nature  of  the 
satisfaction  was  such  as  to  warrant  the  universal  grant, 
and  that  is  enough  for  us. 

The  offer  and  promise  certainly  prove  that  the  pro- 
vision was  for  all  as  capable  agents,  or  for  all  in  such 
a  sense  that  they  can  actually  enjoy  it  by  doing  their 
duty.     And  this  is  all  we  ask. 

But  an  attempt  is  made  to  account  for  the  offer  on  the 
ground  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  atonement,  without  sup- 
posing the  provision  in  any  sense  for  all.     "  That  may 

*  Our  view  of  the  grant  differs  from  that  of  the  Remonstrants  in  this. 
We  say  it  is  all  God  can  do  for  moral  agents  otherwise  than  as  a  re- 
ward ■  they  said  it  was  all  he  could  do  for  wen  without  destroying  their 
freedom.     Their  errour  lay  in  denying  special  grace  in  regeneration. 


332  THE   BENEFIT  [PART  III. 

be  sufficient  for  the  ransom  of  1000  prisoners  which  in 
fact  is  paid  for  one  hundred.  Suppose  the  ransom 
price  to  be  a  pearl  of  exceeding  great  value,  much 
more  than  sufficient  to  redeem  all  the  captives  in  pri- 
son :  but  the  person  paying  it  had  it  in  view  only  to  re- 
deem his  own  friends.  This  intention  in  the  redeemer, 
and  the  acceptance  of  the  price  by  the  authority  which 
holds  them  in  bondage,  constitutes  this  pearl  a  ransom, 
and  confines  it  to  the  number  for  whom  it  was  design- 
ed. But  the  pearl  itself  is  sufficient  to  ransom  all  the 
rest  of  the  captives  if  it  had  been  applied  to  their  ad- 
vantage. To  carry  on  the  illustration.  Suppose  that 
the  person  undertaking  to  redeem  his  friends  should 
say,  '  I  will  have  proclamation  made  in  the  prison  that 
every  one  who  will  acknowledge  me  as  his  deliverer, 
and  will  subject  himself  to  my  authority,  may  imme- 
diately come  forth  upon  the  footing  of  the  ransom 
which  I  have  paid  ;  for  none  but  my  friends  will  ac- 
cept these  terms.  The  remainder  will  prefer  their 
prison  to  liberty,  which  can  only  be  had  by  submission 
to  one  whom  they  inveterately  hate.'  Now  the  per- 
son commissioned  to  carry  these  tidings  to  the  prison, 
would  feel  himself  authorized  to  proclaim  deliverance 
to  every  one  who  was  willing  to  accept  the  terms,  and 
use  arguments  and  motives  to  induce  them  to  submit : 
but  the  event  would  be  that  none  would  accept  the  of- 
fer but  the  real  friends  of  the  redeemer.  This  he  knew 
from  the  beginning;  and  therefore  he  paid  the  ransom 
for  no  others.  Is  there  any  thing  insincere  in  this  whole 
transaction?  The  messenger  is  not  authorized  to  de- 
clare that  the  whole  arc  certainly  ransomed,  but  that 
there  is  a  ransom  provided  for  every  one  who  will  ac- 
cept the  terms." 

Now  this  is  as  ingenious  as  it  could  be  ;  and  all  that 
is  wanting  to  make  it  a  just  representation,  is  an  agree- 


«HAP.  II.]  OFFERED  TO  ALL.  333 

merit  publicly  made  with  the  retainer  of  the  prisoners  that 
if  the  900  attempt  to  come  out  they  shall  not  be  stopt. 
Then,  whatever  foreknowledge  there  might  be  of  the 
refusal  of  a  part,  there  would  be  a  ransom  paid  for  all 
as  capable  agents.  But  for  want  of  this  the  represen- 
tation does  not  agree  with  the  Gospel :  for  that  the 
Father  has  publicly  engaged  not  to  cast  off  any  of  the 
human  race  who  come  to  him,  every  reader  of  the  Bi- 
ble knows.  For  want  of  this  the  representation  disa- 
grees with  the  Gospel  in  a  point  which  gives  the  trans- 
action the  appearance  of  great  unfairness.  If  the  900 
had  attempted  to  come  out  they  would  certainly  have 
been  stopt,  and  none  the  less  for  the  value-of  the  pearl. 
That  value  was  only  a  blind,  and  in  no  degree  justifi- 
ed the  offer.  But  for  the  advantage  gained  by  a  de- 
ceptive appearance,  the  proclamation  might  as  well 
have  been  made  without  that  sufficiency.  Such  a  doc- 
trine tends  to  make  every  one  distrust  the  sincerity  of  the 
offer,  and  to  say,  as  the  unbelieving  are  too  apt  to  do,  It 
does  not  mean  me,  and  I  shall  not  be  accepted  if  I  go. 
In  all  this  it  differs  from  the  Gospel.  Who  will  pre- 
tend to  say  that  if  Judas  had  believed,  (and  I  hope 
enough  has  been  said  to  justify  the  supposition,)  he 
wrould  have  been  rejected  ?  But  if  he  had  believed? 
you  say,  it  would  have  been  foreknown,  and  the  atone- 
ment would  have  been  made  for  him.  And  are  you 
sure  it  would  have  been  foreknown  ?  We  have  no  other 
idea  of  God's  foreknowledge  than  that  it  is  founded  on 
his  own  purpose  to  produce  or  permit.  He  therefore  fore- 
knew whether  he  should  give  faith  to  Judas.  But  this 
possible  action  of  which  I  am  speaking,  would  not  have 
been  caused  by  God,  nor  have  grown  out  of  any  pur- 
pose of  his.  Plow  then  should  it  have  been  foreknown  ? 
No  event  is  in  fact  unforeknown ;  because,  beyond 
what  is  produced  by  the  direct  influence  of  God,  the 


334  THE  BENEFIT  [PART  11I« 

universe  is  governed  by  motives,  the  tendency  of  which 
he  perfectly  understands.  But  the  possibility  of  the 
action  under  consideration,  did  not  depend  on  the  mo- 
tives which  God  had  actually  spread,  but  on  the  facul- 
ties of  a  rational  soul.  Had  Judas  done  as  he  ought, 
an  event  wTould  have  taken  place  which  was  never 
foreseen.  And  had  he  done  as  he  ought  without  the 
influence  and  motives  which  God  controlled,  (and  his 
obligations  were  independent  of  both,)  an  event  would 
have  taken  place,  which,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  could 
not  have  been  foreseen.  No  such  event  ever  did  or 
will  occur :  I  only  make  these  remarks  to  show  how 
independent  of  divine  foreknowledge  the  natural  pos- 
sibility of  action  is.  Unnumbered  actions  which  God 
never  foreknew,  are  still  naturally  possible,  or  pre- 
science reduces  every  thing  to  fate. 

It  is  on  this  ground  that  God,  in  all  his  treatment  of 
moral  agents^  (except  in  the  single  instance  of  pro- 
phecy,) proceeds  just  as  though  he  had  no  foreknow- 
ledge. The  capacity  cfr  creatures  to  act,  and  of  course 
the  natural  possibility  of  their  action,  and  their  obliga- 
tions, are  independent  of  prescience  ;  and  the  Moral 
Governour,  founding  his  course  on  that  capacity  and 
possibility,  and  on  those  obligations,  holds  his  way  as 
though  nothing  was  foreseen. 

In  the  case  of  the  prisoners,  you  are  reduced  to  this 
dilemma.  Either  the  offer  of  release  to  the  900  was 
made  deceitfully,  or  on  the  avowed  principle  of  setting 
them  free  without  a  price  paid  for  them.  And  are  you 
prepared  to  say  that  God  has  avowed  the  principle  of 
offering  to  the  non-elect  a  pardon  unfounded  on  the 
atonement  ?  that  when  he  would  not  discharge  his  own 
elect  without  exacting  life  for  life,  he  has  offered  to  re- 
lease others  without  an  expiation?  The  other  alterna- 
tive is  chosen,  and  God  is  set  forth  as  offering  the  b<^ 


CHAP.  II.J  OFFERED  TO  ALL.  335 

nefit  of  a  ransom  which  has  never  been' paid,  and  ten- 
dering a  deliverance  which  if  accepted  would  be  de- 
nied :  for  it  is  truly  said  in  the  same  paper,  that  "  the 
death  of  Christ  must  expiate  our  sins  before  any  way 
can  be  opened"  for  pardon. 

If  prescience  is  to  have  any  influence  in  such  a  mat- 
ter, why  do  you  stop  here  ?  It  ought  to  carry  you  to  a 
denial  that  the  offer  was  designed  for  the  non-elect.  If 
foreknowledge  prevented  the  atonement  from  being 
made  for  them,  foreknowledge  would  prevent  the  offer 
from  being  intended  for  them.  And  some  have  actu- 
ally gone  to  this  length,  and  affirmed  that  the  offer  is 
made  only  to  the  "  thirsty"  and  those  who  "  will" 
come,  and  was  not  designed  for  those  who  it  was  fore- 
seen would  not  be  thirsty  or  willing. 

This  brings  us  to  the  proof  that  the  offer  and  pro- 
mise are  indeed  made  to  all.  Facts  will  not  bear  you 
out  in  saying  that  the  offer  is  made  only  to  the  elect,  and 
falls  on  the  ear  of  others  incidentally,  like  a  preacher 
addressing  a  select  society,  heedless  of  the  strangers 
who  have  mingled  with  the  crowd.  No,  the  speaker 
calls  those-  strangers  by  name,  and  declares  that  he 
means  them,  and  lays  them  individually  under  the 
most  solemn  obligations  to  receive  the  message,  and 
afterwards  sends  them  all  to  prison  for  rejecting  it. 
Those  who  refused  to  come  to  the  wedding,  were  the 
identical  persons  to  whom  the  invitation  had  been  ex- 
pressly sent ;  and  the  wicked  at  last  will  be  condemn- 
ed for  the  rejection  of  calls  made  to  them  in  particular*. 

Either  the  grant  is  so  completely  made  to  all  and 
each  as  to  lay  a  foundation  on  which  faith  with  all  its 
confidence,  (for  it  must  not  wavert,)  can  rest  its  eter- 
nal and  infinite  concerns,  or  every  act  which  appropri- 
ates the  Gospel  to  one's  self  antecedent  to  the  full 

*  Prov.  1, 24—31.  Mat.  22.  1—14. 1  James  1.  6, 


336  THE  BENEFIT  [PART  III. 

assurance  of  hope,  must  be  presumptuous.  If  the 
grant  is  made  onjy  to  the  elect,  no  man  has  a  right  to 
rest  his  own  soul  on  the  promise,  until,  from  his  feel- 
ings towards  the  abstract  Gospel,  he  knows  himself  to 
dp  one  of  the  elect.  And  throughout  his  life,  in  pro- 
portion as  he  questions  his  election,  he  must  be  per- 
plexed with  doubts  about  his  right  to  take  the  invita- 
tion to  himself  and  rest  his  soul  on  Christ.  In  all  its 
appropriating  acts,  his  faith  can  never  exert  its  ener- 
gies unrestrained,  but  must  be  cramped  and  manacled 
with  the  unceasing  apprehension  that  it  has  no  warrant 
to  make  the  appropriation.  Am  I  elected?  will  be 
the  leading  inquiry,  instead  of,  What  has  God  pro- 
mised ? 

I  argue  the  same  thing  from  the  very  nature  of 
faith.  This  is  a  belief  either  of  a  divine  testimony  or 
promise.  But  there  is  no  testimony  that  this,  that,  or 
the  other  man  is  elected  :  the  testimony  respects  the 
public  mission  of  Christ,  and  the  method  and  condi- 
tions of  salvation.  So  far  then  as  testimony  is  con- 
cerned, faith  must  exert  all  her  attributes  independent- 
ly of  the  question  who  is  elected.  And  if  there  are 
any  personal  concerns  to  transact  with  Christ,— if  I 
am  to  receive  him  form?/  Saviour,  and  not  merely  to  re- 
gard him  as  a  Saviour  in  gGneral,  I  must  unreservedly 
receive  him  for  my  own  on  the  authority  given  in  the 
public  dispensation  of  the  Gospel,  without  reference 
to  the  question  whether  I  am  elected.  If  this  is 
the  nature  of  faith,  then  in  that  public  dispensation  the 
grant  must  be  made  to  all.  Turn  now  to  the  promise. 
I  cannot  believe  a  promise  to  me  if  there  is  none.  I 
have  no  right  to  believe  that  God  will  be  "  a  Reward- 
er"  to  me  on  any  conditions,  if  there  is  no  promise  to 
me.  But  it  is  the  privilege  and  duty  of  all  men,  with- 
out waiting  for  evidence  of  their  election,  to  exercise 


CHAP.  II. j  OFFERED  TO  ALL,  337 

this  confidence,  which  indeed  is  so  essential  a  part  of 
faith  that  without  it  no  man  can  gain  the  favour  of 
God.  "  Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him, 
for  he  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
that  he  is  a  Rewarder,  [of  the  elect  ?  no,  without  dis- 
tinction,] of  them  that  diligently  seek  him*."  This 
confidence,  which  certainly  every  man  is  to  exercise 
in  relation  to  himself,  and  not  merely  in  reference  to 
others,  is  thus  made  the  very  definition  of  faith  itself. 
And  it  will  appear  in  another  place  that  every  man  is 
commanded  upon  pain  of  death  to  believe.  Every 
man  then  is  laid  under  bonds  to  exercise  unwavering 
assurance  that  he  himself  shall  be  accepted  if  he  dili- 
gently seeks.  Whatever  opinion  he  may  form  of  his 
state  and  character,  he  must  believe  this  as  firmly  as 
his  own  existence.  A  doubt  on  this  subject  is  the 
very  unbelief  against  which  eternal  plagues  are  de- 
nounced. The  grand  effort  of  every  sincere  and  en- 
lightened seeker  is  to  work  his  soul  up  to  this  confi- 
dence, which  would  be  dashed  in  a  moment  by  a 
doubt  respecting  the  extension  of  the  promise  to  him. 
This  bond  on  every  man  infallibly  proves  a  condition- 
al promise  to  every  man  on  which  his  confidence  may 
rest. 

And  this  has  been  the  common  opinion  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  world.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Calvin  himself. 
In  his  Comment  on  Rom.  5.  18.  we  find  this  declara- 
tion :  "  He  makes  this  the  common  grace  of  all  be- 
cause it  is  set  before  all,  not  because  it  is  actually  ex- 
tended to  all.  For  though  Christ  suffered  for  the  sins 
if  the  whole  worlds  and  by  the  goodness  of  God  is  in- 
discriminately offered  to  all,  yet  all  do  not  embrace 
himf." 

*'  Heb.  li.  €,— -t  Quoted  in  Watts'  Work?,  vol..  6,  p.  287, 
2   F 


338  THE  BENEFIT  [PART  III. 

This  was  also  the  opinion  of  the  Synod  of  Dort. 
"  The  promise  of  the  Gospel  is  this,  that  whosoever 
believes  in  Christ  crucified  shall  not  perish  but  have 
everlasting  life  ;  which  promise,  together  with  the 
command  to  repent  and  believe,  ought  without  dis- 
tinction and  indiscriminately  to  be  announced  and 
proposed  to  all  people  and  men  to  whom  God  in  his 
good  pleasure  sends  the  Gospel."  "  As  many  as  are 
called  by  the  Gospel  are  called  in  earnest ;  for  in 
earnest  and  most  truly  does  God  show  in  his  word 
what  is  agreeable  to  him,  viz.  that  the  called  come  to 
him.  In  earnest  likewise  he  promises  to  all  who  come 
to  him  and  believe,  rest  to  their  souls  and  eternal  life. 
And  that  many  who  are  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
Gospel  do  not  come  and  are  not  converted," is  not  to 
be  imputed  as  a  fault  to  the  Gospel,  nor  to  Christ  of- 
fered in  the  Gospel,  nor  to  God  calling  by  the  Gos- 
pel, but  to  the  called  themselves*."  The  delegates 
from  Great  Britain  say,  "  There  is  no  mortal  who  may 
not  truly  and  in  earnest  be  called  by  the  ministers  of 
the  Gospel  to  a  participation  of  remission  of  sins  and 
eternal  life  through  this  death  of  Christ. — Nothing 
false  or  dissembling  goes  under  the  Gospel ;  but  what- 
ever in  it  is  offered  or  promised  to  men  by  ministers, 
is  in  the  same  manner  offered  and  promised  to  them 
by  the  Author  of  the  Gospel. — In  this  merit  of  Christ's 
death  is  founded  the  universal  Gospel  promise,  ac- 
cording to  which  all  who  believe  in  Christ  do  actually 
obtain  remission  of  sins  and  eternal  life.  That  this 
promise  is  universal,  and  founded  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  appears  from  Acts  10.  43.  Although  there- 
fore this  promise  is  not  promulgated  to  all  in  every 
place  and  time,  it  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  might  truly 
be  announced  to  all  and  each. — The  administration  of 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part  I.  p.  289,  298. 


v.HAP.  11.]  OFFERED  TO  ALL.  339 

grace  in  the  Church,  where,  according  to  this  promise, 
of  the  Gospel,  salvation  is  offered  to  all,  is  enough  to 
convict  all  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving  that  it  was 
by  their  own  fault,  and  either  through  their  neglect  or 
contempt  of  the  Gospel,  that  they  perished  and  lost 
the  offered  benefit*."  The  delegates  from  Hesse  say, 
"  The  Gospel  is  proclaimed  indiscriminately  to  all,  to 
the  elect  and  reprobate!."  Matthias  Martinius,  one 
of  the  delegates  from  Bremen,  says,  "  The  exercise 
of  this  love  to  man  appears  in  the  outward  call  to  the 
elect  and  reprobate  without  distinction. — And  there- 
fore upon  whatever  man  we  fall,  to  him  we  are  the 
messengers  and  publishers  of  this  salutary  gracej." 
Henry  Iselburg,  another  delegate  from  Bremen,  says, 
"  The  remedy  of  sin  and  death,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
is  proposed  and  offered  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel, not  to  certain  persons  only,  or  to  those  alone  who 
are  to  be  saved,  but  to  the  elect  and  reprobate  indis- 
criminately 5  and  all  without  distinction  are  invited  to 
a  participation  or  fruition  of  it,  and  to  eternal  life 
thereby§."  The  Dutch  Professors  say,  "  It  is  not 
denied  by  the  orthodox  that  this  ransom  of  Christ  is 
to  be  indiscriminately  announced  as  such,  [as  being 
sufficient  to  save  all  who  believe,]  to  Christian  peo- 
ple, and  to  whomsoever  the  Gospel  is  preached,  and 
to  be  offered  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  that  in  ear- 
nest, and  according  to  the  counsel  of  the  Father;  the 
hidden  decisions  of  God  being  in  the  mean  time  left 
to  himself,  who  dispenses  this  grace  and  applies  it  as 
far  as  and  to  whomsoever  he  will  ||." 

Some  members  of  the  Synod  did  indeed  acknow- 
ledge that  their  own  practice  was  to  present  the  offers 
of  the  Gospel  only  to  the  thirsty  and  penitent ;  aileg- 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part  II.  p.  101, 102 -t  p.  114, ±  p.  134,  135, 

6  p.  141. 1|  Part  III.  p.  122. 


340  THE  EENEFIT  [PART  III. 

ing  that  when  they  preached  repentance  to  all  it  was 
not  preaching  the  Gospel.  What,  not  when  like  John 
the  Baptist  they  preached  "  repentance  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins"?  or  like  the  apostles,  said  to  the  unre- 
generate  multitude,  "  Repent  and  be  converted  that 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out*"?  But  if  they  still  he- 
sitate to  present  the  Gospel  to  the  carnal,  I  will  spread 
before  them  the  following  page.  "  Wisdom  hath 
builded  her  house,  she  hath  hewn  out  her  seven  pil- 
lars, she  hath  killed  her  beasts,  she  hath  mingled  her 
wine,  she  hath  also  furnished  her  table ;  she  hath  sent 
forth  her  maidens,  she  crielh  upon  the  highest  places  of 
the  city.  Whoso  is  simple  let  him  turn  in  hither,  and  as 
for  him  that  zvanteth  widerstanding,  she  saith  to  him, 
Come  eat  of  my  bread  and  drink  of  the  wine  which  I 
have  mingled:  forsake  the  foolish  and  live,  and  go  in 
the  way  of  understanding."  "  Hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  ye  rulers  of  Sodom  ;  give  ear  unto  the  law  of 
our  God,  ye  people  of  Gomorrah.-  Wash  ye,  make 
you  clean,  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  be- 
fore my  eyes,  cease  to  do  evil,  learn  to  do  well. — 
Though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  as  white 
as  snow ;  though  they  be  red  like  crimson,  they  shall 
be  as  wool."  "  We  pray  you  in  Christ's  stead,  be  ye 
reconciled  to  God."  But  this  is  preaching  repen- 
tance ;  what  then  will  you  say  of  the  next  ?  "  Look 
unto  me  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  eartht." 
That  the  call  is  extended  to  the  non-elect,  is  a  fact 
expressly  asserted  in  so  many  words  :  "  Many  be  call- 
ed but  few  chosen."  Those  who  belong  to  this  class  are 
invited  when  they  are  hardy  enough  to  make  light  of  the 
invitation,  and  even  to  destroy  the  messengers  who 
brino-  it.  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  certain 

*  Mark  1.  4.     Acts  3.  19. 1  Prov.  9.  1—6.     Is.  1.  10—18.  ana 

45.  22.    2  Cor.  5.  20. 


CHAP.  II.]  OFFERED  TO  ALL.  341 

king  which  made  a  marriage  for  his  son,  and  sent  forth  his 
servants  to  call  them  that  were  bidden  to  the  wedding, 
and  they  would  not  come.  Again  he  sent  forth  other 
servants,  saying,  tell  them  which  are  bidden,  Behold  I 
have  prepared  my  dinner,  my  oxen  and  my  failings  arc 
killed,  and  all  things  are  ready,  come  unto  the  marriage. 
But  they  made  light  of  it  and  went  their  ways,  one  to 
his  farm,  another  to  his  merchandise.  And  the  remnant, 
took  his  servants  and  entreated  them  spitefully  and 
slew  them.  But  when  the  king  heard  thereof  he  was 
wroth,  and  he  sent  forth  his  armies  and  destroyed 
those  murderers  and  burnt  up  their  city.  Then  saith 
he  to  his  servants,  the  wedding  is  ready,  but  they  which 
were  bidden  were  not  worthy  :  go  ye  therefore  into 
the  highways,  and  as  many  as  ye  shall  find  bid  to  the 
marriage.  So  those  servants  went  out  into  the  high 
ways,  and  gathered  together  all  as  many  as  they  found, 
both  bad  and  good,  and  the  wedding  was  furnished 
w>th  guests.  And  when  the  king  came  in  to  see  the 
guests,  he  saw  there  a  man  which  had  not  on  a  wed- 
ding garment.  And  he  saith  unto  him,  friend,  how 
earnest  thou  in  hither  not  having  a  wedding  gar- 
ment ?  And  he  was  speechless.  Then  said  the  king 
to  the  servants,  bind  him  hand  and  foot,  and  take  him 
away  and  cast  him  into  utter  darkness  ;  there  shall  be 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  For  many  are  called 
but  few  are  chosen*." 

All  this  was  fulfilled  in  the  invitations  to  the  Jews, 
and  in  the  commission  to  the  apostles,  "  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach,"  not  repentance  only,  but  "  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptised  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damnedt." 

The  preachers  of  the  Old  Testament  had  made  in- 

*  Matt.  20. 16.  &  22.  2—14 „t  Maik  16.  15,  16. 

%  F  2 


342  THE  BENEFIT  [PART  III* 

discriminate  offers  of  life  to  the  Jews  in  the  name  of  a 
Saviour  to  come.  a  To  him  give  all  the  prophets  wit- 
ness, that  through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  Christ  himself 
did  the  same.  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath 
everlasting  life,  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall 
not  see  life."  "  Thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer, 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  theTthird  day,  and  that  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  hia 
name  among  all  nations."  To  the  "  wretched,  and 
miserable,  and  poor,  and  blind,  and  naked/'  he  said, 
"  I  counsel  thee  to  buy  of  me  gold  tried  in  the  fire  that 
thou  mayst  be  rich,  and  white  raiment  that  thou  mayst 
be  clothed."  "  Behold  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock  ; 
if  any  man  hear  my  voice  and  open  the  door,  I  will 
come  in  to  him  and  will  sup  with  him  and  he  with  me." 
"  The  Spirit  and  the  bride  say,  come ;  and  let  him 
that  heareth  say,  come ;  and  let  him  that  is  athirst 
come ;  and  whosoever  will  let  him  take  the  water  of 
life  freely."  After  the  same  manner  the  apostles 
preached.  To  a  mixed  assembly  of  Jews  and  hea- 
then, in  the  first  Gospel  sermon  ever  preached  in  the 
place,  one  of  them  said,  "  Be  it  known  unto  you  there- 
fore, men  and  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preach- 
ed unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  by  him  all 
that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things  from  which  ye 
could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses*." 

Thus  the  grant  is  actually  made  to  all,  lay- 
ing a  solid  foundation  for  their  faith.  By  this  impor- 
tant circumstance  the  non-elect  are  distinguished  from 
devils.  The  latter  have  no  foundation  for  faith,  be- 
cause there  is  no  promise  for  them  to  believe.  A  God 
of  truth  has   not  unbarred   their  prison  and  assured 

*  Luke  24.  47.     John  3.  36.  &  5.  24.    Acts  10.  43.  &  13,  38,  39, 
Rev.  3.  17,  18,  20.  and  22.  17. 


CHAP.  II.]  OFFERED  TO  ALL.  343 

them  of  mercy  through  his  Son  if  they  will  accept  it. 
The  promise  and  oath  of  God  have  not  fallen  on  the 
ear  of  hell.  This  vast  difference  lies  between  devils 
and  non-elect  men.  One  have  a  stable  foundation  for 
their  faith, — for  a  full  assurance  that  they  shall  be  par- 
doned by  Christ  if  they  will  believe  ;  the  other  have 
no  foundation  at  all.  One  have  an  actual  grant  of 
pardon  made  to  them  as  moral  agents,  as  far  as  it  can 
be  made  before  they  have  performed  their  part ;  the 
other  are  delivered  over  to  gleamless  despair.  One 
can  easily  make  remission  their  own  if  only  well  dis- 
posed ;  the  other  could  not  be  discharged  if  they  were 
as  holy  as  Gabriel.  One  will  actually  be  pardoned  if 
they  believe,  the  decree  of  non-election  notwithstand- 
ing 5  the  other  have  nothing  to  believe  but  the  sen- 
tence of  eternal  reprobation.  One  hear  it  said,  with 
an  eye  directly  fixed  on  them,  "  Behold  I  have  pre- 
pared my  dinner,  my  oxen  and  my  fatlings  are  killed, 
and  all  things  are  ready,  come  unto  the  marriage  ;" 
affirming  in  the  plainest  terms,  the  provision  was  made 
for  you;  the  other  are  constantly  hearing  the  sentence, 
"  Depart,  ye  cursed."  And  yet  was  no  discrimina- 
tion made  between  non-elect  men  and  devils  in  the 
provision  for  pardon  ? 


CHAPTER  III. 

ALL  MEN  BOUND  TO  MAKE  THE  BENEFIT  THEIR  OWN. 

After  all  that  has  been  said,  if  the  benefit  is  offer- 
ed to  the  non-elect  upon  impossible  conditions,  it  is 
still  not  provided  for  them  as  moral  agents,  and  the 
grant  really  amounts  to  nothing.  This  is  the  \ery 
opening  by  which  some  who  admit  the  universality  of 


344  ALL  BOUND  TO  MAKE        [PART  III. 

the  grant,  elude  the  force  of  this  stupendous  fact. 
It  is  impossible,  say  they,  for  the  non-elect  to  be- 
lieve, because  faith  is  "  the  gift  of  God ;'?  and  on 
this  assumption  they  proceed  to  draw  their  conclu- 
sions just  as  though  the  non-elect  were  dead  mass- 
es of  matter.  If  this  was  the  case,  or  if  salvation 
had  been  offered  them  upon  any  condition  which  they 
had  not  natural  ability  to  fulfil,  (for  instance,  on  their 
possessing  the  strength  of  a  Goliath  or  the  intellect  of 
an  Aristotle.)  then  indeed  the  offer  would  not  have 
proved  a  provision  for  them  as  moral  agents.  But  if 
the  benefit  had  been  suspended  on  their  stretching  out 
the  hand,  it  would  have  been  easy  for  all  to  see  that  it 
was  provided  for  them  as  capable  agents,  though  they 
should  have  lost  it  by  refusing  to  perform  that  act.  Now 
if  they  do  possess  a  capacity  which  is  a  bonajiie  basis 
of  obligation,  and  which  bears  the  same  relation  to  the 
obligation  to  believe  that  muscular  strength  would 
to  the  obligation  to  extend  an  arm  at  the  divine  com- 
mand ;  if  they  can  be  as  reasonably  required  to  do  the 
one  as  the  other,  and  as  reasonably  punished  for  the 
neglect,  without  resting  any  part  of  their  obligation 
on  Adam  ;  then  a  benefit  which  is  suspended  on  their 
faith,  is  just  as  much  provided  for  them  as  moral  agents, 
(or  as  creatures  under  obligations,)  as  though  it  had 
been  suspended  on  their  stretching  out  the  hand.  And 
the  only  reason  why  it  is  not  easy  for  us  to  realize  this, 
is  the  difficulty  we  find  in  apprehending  that  their  na- 
tural powers  are  as  complete  a  basis  of  obligation  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  If  it  was  familiar  to  the 
mind  that  a  rational  creature,  separated  from  the  Spi- 
rit, is  as  perfectly  and  reasonably  bound  to  believe  on 
Christ  as  to  extend  an  arm  at  the  divine  command, 
every  difficulty  would  vanish.  We  should  then  see 
that  the  benefit  of  an  atonement  is  as  completely  pro- 


OIIAF.  III.]  TEE  BENEFIT  THEIR  OWN".  345 

vided  for  those  who  remain  unsanctified,  as  the  house 
which  they  are  at  liberty  to  occupy,  or  the  office  which 
is  suspended  on  their  own  choice. 

It  becomes  then  a  question  of  vital  importance 
what  relation  unbelievers  bear  to  faith  in  point  of  abi- 
lity and  obligation  ;  whether  they  are  to  be  viewed  in 
this  matter  as  impotent  machines,  or  as  men  possess- 
ed of  ample  natural  powers  and  under  reasonable 
bonds. 

This  brings  us  to  the  second  proposition  in  the  plan 
of  the  argument,  which  was,  that  the  benefit  of  the 
atonement  is  so  brought  within  the  reach  of  all  who 
hear  the  Gospel,  that  they  are  bound  to  make  it  their 
own,  and  can  enjoy  it  by  only  doing  their  duty.  No- 
thing is  necessary  to  support  this  proposition  but  the 
two  following  facts. 

(1.)  The  faith  on  which  the  benefit  is  suspended  is 
required  of  all.  Of  every  man  that  "charity"  is  de- 
manded which  "  believeth  all  things."  And  many 
texts  might  be  quoted  like  the  following:  "  This  is  his 
commandment,  that  we  should  believe  on  the  name  of 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  To  the  unbelieving  Jews  who 
afterwards  died  in  their  sins,  such  injunctions  as  these 
were  addressed:  "Repent  ye  and  believe  the  Gos- 
pel." "  Though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works." 
"  While  ye  have  the  light  believe  in  the  light."  "  This 
is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he 
hath  sent*." 

(2.)  The  unbelief  of  sinners  is  condemned  and  pu- 
nished. "  He  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin, — because 
they  believe  not  on  me."  "  Ye  have  not  his  word 
abiding  in  you,  for  whom  he  hath  sent  him  ye  believe 
not. — Ye   will  not  come   to  me  that  ye  might  have 

*  Mark  1.  15.     John  6.  29,  and  10,  33.  and  12.  36.     1  Cor.  13,  7. 
1  John  3.  23. 


346  ALL  BOUND  TO  MAKE        [PART  III* 

iife."  "  If  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he,  ye  shall  die 
in  your  sins."  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  dam- 
ned." "  He  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already, 
because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God.  And  this  is  the  condemnation, 
that  light  is  come  into  the  world  and  men  loved  dark- 
ness rather  than  light  because  their  deeds  were  evil." 
"  If  our  Gospel  be  hid  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost, 
in  whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds 
of  them  which  believe  not."  {i  That  they  all  might 
be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth  but  had  plea- 
sure in  unrighteousness."  "  To  whom  swore  he  that 
they  should  not  enter  into  his  rest,  but  to  them 
that  believed  not?"  That  tremendous  burst  of  wrath 
which  overwhelmed  the  Jewish  nation,  and  which 
follows  them  to  this  day,  is  a  standing  monument  to 
the  world  of  the  vengeance  of  God  against  unbelief. 
So  completely  does  the  fault  lie  on  sinners,  that  God 
wipes  his  hands  of  their  blood,  and  in  a  manner  which 
implies  that  he  has  not  failed  to  make  ample  provision 
for  them,  says,  "  What  could  have  been  done  more  to 
my  vineyard  that  1  have  not  done  in  it  ?"  "  As  I  live 
— I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  but 
that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live  :  turn  ye, 
turn  ye, — for  why  will  ye  die*  ?" 

That  the  wicked  lose  the  benefit  of  the  atonement 
by  their  own  fault,  is  supported,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  the  collective  testimony  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  I 
will  now  add  the  opinion  of  several  of  the  particular 
classes  of  delegates.  Those  from  Hesse  say,  that 
mankind  "  are  all  commanded  to  believe  in  Christ,  and 
that  the  unbelieving  are  justly  condemned  for  their  un- 

*Isai.  5.4.  Ezek.  33.  11.  Mar.  16.  16.  John  3.  18,  19,  and  5. 
33,  40.  and  8.  24.  and  16.  8,  9.  2.  Cor.  4.  3,  4.  2.  Thes.  2.  12.  Hch 
3.  18. 


CHAP.  III.]  THE  BENEFIT  THEIR  OWN.  347 

belief*."     Those  from  the  Wetteraw  say,  "  The  suffi- 
ciency and  magnitude  of  the  ransom  of  Christ,  as  re- 
lates to  the  reprobate,  has  a  double  end,  one  in  itself 
and  the  other  by  accident. — The  end  by  accident  is, 
that  they  may  be  without  excuse  :  because  they  perish, 
not  by  the  fault  of  Christ,  but  by  their  own  ;  since  by 
their  own   unbelief  they  reject  the  benefits  of  Christ 
offered  in  the  Gospel?."     Matthias  Martinius,  a  dele- 
gate from  Bremen,  says,  "  In   this  [outward]  call  are 
to  be  distinguished  these  things  :   the  historical  narra- 
tive concerning  Christ,  the   command  to  believe,  the 
interdiction   of  unbelief,   the   promise  of  eternal  life 
made  to  believers,  the  threatening  of  damnation  to  the 
unbelieving.     And  if  any  one  does   not  believe,  the 
issue  of  this  call  is   condemnation,  and  expressly  for 
this  reason,  because  he  does  not  believe  in  the  name 
of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  (John  3.  18.)     But 
this  issue  in  itself  is  not  intended  by  God,  but  follows 
by   accident  through   the   fault   of    man. — For   these 
things,  [which  are  required  as  conditions  of  salvation,] 
men  are   bound  by  the  power  of  a  divine  command 
to  perform  themselves  ;  and  they  who  are  not  able  to 
do  this,  are  not  able  through  their  own  fault?."     A  mo- 
ral inability,     Henry  Iselburg,  another  delegate  from 
Bremen,  says,  "All  and  each   are  sincerely  and  seri- 
ously commanded  to  believe  in  Christ ; — and  they  who 
do  not  believe  in  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God  are  justly 
condemned. — No  one  of  the   reprobate  can  be  con- 
demned and   perish  for  want  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
or  because  there  was  not  in  him  a  sufficient  remedy 
against  destruction,  but  each  one  through  his  own  fault 
entirely§."     The  delegates  from   Drent  say,  "  It  is 
most;  true   that    the  reprobate   perish  by   their  own 
fault||.» 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part  II.      p;  114.-1  p.  128.— %  p.  134,  137.— 4  p, 
141,  142.— JJ  Pait  IH.  p.  205, 


348  AXL  BOUND  TO  MAKE       [PART  III. 

Thus  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  those  who  re- 
main unsanctified  have  the  benefit  of  the  atonement  so 
within  their  reach  that  they  ought  to  make  it  their  own, 
and  have  no  right  to  lose  it,  and  are  charged  with  a 
most  unreasonable  and  wicked  neglect  in  not  apply- 
ing it  to  themselves  ;  that  God  peremptorily  forbids 
them  to  do  without  it,  and  when  they  attempt  to  put  it 
from  them,  will  take  no  excuse,  and  at  last  will  visit  them 
with  eternal  punishment  for  throwing  it  out  of  their 
hands.  He  actually  enters  against  them,  in  the  ac- 
counts of  a  moral  government,  the  charge  of  an  atonement, 
as  a  provision  made  for  their  use,  as  a  privilege,  a  ta- 
lent committed  to  them ;  and  he  will  act  upon  this 
charge  at  the  judgment  of  the  great  day  and  through- 
out eternity.  In  that  part  of  his  administration  in 
which  he  is  the  most  scrupulous  to  weigh  all  things  in 
exact  scales,  and  to  express  all  matters  with  literal 
truth,  he  will  pronounce,  in  tones  as  deliberate  and 
solemn  as  eternal  damnation,  that  an  atonement  was 
provided  for  them,  and  that  they  madly  threw  it  away. 

Now  this  decides  the  question.  There  is  no  occa- 
sion any  longer  to  inquire  about  the  nature  of  the 
atonement,  or  the  express  purpose  for  which  it  was  of- 
fered ;  we  find  the  privilege  actually  in  the  hands  of 
all.  .  Their  obligation  to  use  it  for  their  benefit,  makes 
it  true,  independently  of  every  other  circumstance,  that 
if.  is  for  them  as  moral  agents. 

I  know  of  but  one  way  in  which  an  evasion  of  this 
argument  can  even  be  attempted.  It  will  be  said  that 
God,  foreknowing  that  the  non-elect  would  not  accept 
an  atonement  if  provided  for  them,  did  not  make  the 
provision  ;  and  yet,  concealing  the  fact  from  them,  and 
to  bring  out  their  hearts  to  view,  commanded  them  to 
accept  it,     This  is   exactly  the  case  presented  in  the 


CHAP.  III.]  THE  BENEFIT  THEIR  OWN.  349 

parable  of  the  prisoners  and  the  pearl.     By  this  case 
then  let  the  principle  be  tried. 

Whether  the  ransom  was  accepted  for  the  900  as 
capable  agents,  depends  on  the  question  whether  they 
zcould  have  been  stopt  had  they  attempted  to  come  out. 
That  it  is  lawful  to  make  the  supposition  of  such  an 
attempt,  though  it  was  foreknown  that  it  would  not  be 
made,  appears  from  this :  foreknowledge  does  not 
cause  an  event,  and  therefore  has  no  influence  in  mak- 
ing it  certain,  but  is  only  a  perception  of  what  that 
certainty  is.  Where  it  is  foreseen  that  an  event  will 
not  take  place,  the  foresight  has  no  influence  to  pre- 
vent its  occurrence,  or  to  destroy  the  power  of  crea- 
tures to  produce  it,  or  to  render  the  occurrence  a  na- 
tural impossibility.  If  the  certainty  which  exists  in 
the  thing  itself  has  no  influence  on  any  of  these  mat- 
ters, the  knowledge  of  that  certainty  manifestly  has  not. 
But  if  the  certainty  which  exists  in  the  thing  itself  des- 
troys the  power  of  creatures  to  do  otherwise  than 
they  do,  and  renders  a  different  course  a  natural  im- 
possibility, then  every  thing  is  fate  and  men  are  ma- 
chines. Foreknowledge  has  no  more  influence  on  the 
event,  or  on  the  possibility  of  its  being  otherwise,  or 
on  the  power  of  creatures,  than  after  knowledge.  But 
after  we  know  a  thing  to  be  certain  by  actually  wit- 
nessing the  event,  we  perceive  that  neither  this  cer- 
tainty nor  this  knowledge  had  any  influence  on  the 
power  of  the  agents  concerned.  In  the  case  under 
consideration,  we  plainly  see  that  neither  the  fore- 
knowledge that  the  900  would  not  come  out,  nor  our 
after  knowledge  that  they  did  not  come  out,  had  any  ef- 
fect on  their  power.  They  certainly  were  able  to  come 
out.  Upon  the  principle  now  opposed,  because  a 
thing  is  certain  we  may  not  make  the  supposition  of  its 
being  otherwise.     But  even  after  the  event,  we  do 


350  ALL  BOUND  TO  MAKE      [PART  III. 

make  this  supposition  continually.  In  explaining  the 
influence  of  causes,  or  the  relation  between  antece- 
dents and  consequents,  we  constantly  say,  had  circum- 
stances been  so  and  so,  consequences  would  have  been 
thus  and  thus :  and  we  have  a  right  to  speak  in  this 
manner  of  all  events  which  do  not  involve  a  natural 
impossibility.  We  have  a  right  then  to  ask  what 
would  have  been  the  consequence  had  the  900  accept- 
ed the  offer. 

And  now  in  such  an  event  they  either  would  have 
been  stopt  or  they  would  not.  If  they  would,  the 
whole  transaction  was  a  trick,  and  no  command,  unless 
supported  by  falsehood,  could  have  imposed  on  them 
an  obligation  to  come  out,  because  the  thing  was  a 
natural  impossibility.  And  if  this  is  the  case  with  the 
non-elect,  it  is  not  true,  as  the  Synod  of  Dort  affirm, 
that  they  do  not  perish  "for  want*  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ :"  they  do  perish  in  one  sense  for  want  of 
that  sacrifice,  and  in  another  through  their  own  unbe- 
lief. They  perish  for  want  of  the  sacrifice  in  this 
sense,  that  they  would  perish  if  every  other  cause  were 
removed  ;  in  other  words,  should  they  actually  be- 
lieve they  would  not  be  pardoned. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  prisoners  would  not  have 
been  stopped,  but  would  have  been  permitted  to  come 
out  on  the  ground  of  the  ransom  offered,  then  that  ran- 
som was  certainly  accepted  for  them  as  capable  agents. 
And  if  you  have  evidence  that  they  would  not  have 
been  stopt  by  their  retainer,  it  must  be  because  he  had 
publicly  engaged  that  they  should  come  out  if  they 
would  on  the  ground  of  the  ransom  paid.  And  if  he 
had  made  such  an  engagement,  he  had,  by  a  public 
covenant,  accepted  the  ransom  for  them  as  capable 
agents.  No  matter  what  secret  respect  the  redeemer 
had  to  the  happiness  of  the  hundred.     No  matter  what 


CHAP.   III.]  THE  BENEFIT  THEIR  OWN.  351 

foresight  the  retainer  had  of  the  obstinacy  of  the  rest. 
Here  is  a  public  acceptance  of  the  ransom  for  the  900 
as  capable  agents.  And  pray  what  more  was  done, 
or  could  be  done,  for  the  favoured  hundred  ?  The  ran- 
som was  not  accepted  for  them  in  case  they  would  not 
come  out.  No,  you  say,  but  the  redeemer  and  re- 
tainer both  knew  they  would.  Granted  :  but  still  their 
coming  out  was  an  exertion  of  their  own  agency, 
which  must  not  be  buried  up  or  passed  over  in  silence. 
This  thing,  which  belonged  neither  to  the  redeemer  nor 
retainer,  but  to  themselves,  was  a  necessary  antece- 
dent to  their  deliverance,  and  ought  to  be  spoken  of  as 
such.  The  ransom  then  was  manifestly  offered  for  the 
hundred  to  procure  their  deliverance  on  the  supposition 
of  their  coming  out ;  and  it  was  publicly  agreed  be- 
tween the  parties  that  it  should  obtain  the  deliverance 
of  the  900  on  condition  that  they  would  come  out.  The 
only  difference  was,  that  the  parties  foreknew  tha  tone 
class  would  come  out,  and  that  the  other  would  not.  But 
as  this  foreknowledge  did  not  destroy  the  complete- 
ness of  moral  agency,  nor  any  of  its  attributes,  but  left 
every  thing  pertaining  to  the  agents  unimpaired  and 
unchanged,  it  did  not  prevent  the  ransom  from  being  as 
completely  offered  and  accepted  for  the  900  as  agents 
as  for  the  rest. 

On  the  whole,  if  the  obligation  of  sinners  to  make 
the  benefit  their  own,  does  not  prove  that  the  atone- 
ment was  offered  and  accepted  for  them  as  moral 
agents,  it  does  not  prove  that  the  benefit  would  be 
theirs  even  should  they  fulfil  their  obligations.  And 
then  it  is  made  their  duty  to  secure  an  advantage 
which  they  could  not  secure  by  doing  their  duty.  They 
are  commanded  to  do  a  natural  impossibility  upon 
pain  of  damnation,  and  are  eternally  punished  for  not 
performing  what  with  the  best  dispositions  they  could 


352  ALL  BOUND  TO  MAKE        [PART  III, 

not  have  done.  And  they  would  have  seen  the  oppres- 
sion of  the  command  had  they  not  been  blinded  by 
deception. 

No  such  thing  as  this  is  found  in  the  Gospel.     The 
Father,  who  is  represented  by  the  retainer  of  the  pri- 
soners, has  solemnly  and  publicly  covenanted  that  all 
shall  go  out  on   the  ground  of  the  atonement  if  they 
will  believe,  and  has  thus  openly  declared  it  accepted 
for  all  as  moral  agents.     He  is  the  "  King  which  made 
a  marriage  for  his  Son,5'  and  sent  his  servants  to  say 
to  the  identical  persons  whom  he  afterwards  destroy- 
ed, "  Behold  I  have  prepared  my  dinner,  my  oxen  and 
my  fadings  are  killed,  and  all  things  are  ready,  come 
unto  the  marriage.''     I  have  prepared  my  dinner/or 
you  if  you  will  receive  it;  all  things  are  ready  for  you 
if  you  will  partake.     It  was  in  obedience  to  his  com- 
mand that  the  Son  declared,  "  He  thatbelieveth — shall 
be  saved."     "This  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me, 
that  every  one  which  seeth   the  Son  and  believeth  on 
him,  may  have  everlasting  life*."     Thus  the  Father 
has  solemnly  pledged  himself  that  he  has  accepted  the 
atonement  for  all ;  and  this  information  is   brought  to 
the  world  by  the  Redeemer  himself.     The  Parties  then 
are  both  active  in  proclaiming  this  public  acceptance 
of  the  atonement  for  all.     It  is  in  vain  longer  to  insist 
on  any  secret  intention  of  Christ ;   here  is  his  own 
voice  openly  pronouncing  the  atonement  accepted  for 
all  by  the  mutual  understanding  of  the  Parties.     On 
supposition  then  that  they  who  remain    unsanctified 
should  believe,  they  certainly  would  be  pardoned. 

But  it  is  said,  if  this  supposition  is  made  we  must 
also  suppose  that  the  decree  of  redemption  accorded 
with  this  fact.  No,  but  the  message  to  the  identical 
persons  who  perished,  and  in  the  very  circumstances 

*Mat.  22.  4.     Mar.  16.  16.     John  6.  40. 


CHAP.  HI.]       THE  BENEFIT  THEIR  OWN.        35 

in  which  they  then  stood,  was,  "  All  things  are  ready" 
for  you  ;  not,  all  things  would  have  been  ready  had  it 
been  foreseen  that  you  would  come.  It  was  declared 
that  the  oxen  and  failings  had  been  actually  killed  in 
sufficient  numbers  to  supply  them  all,  and  that  they, 
invited  as  they  were,  stood  in  such  a  relation  to  the 
feast  that  they  could  that  day  enjoy  it  by  only  accept- 
ing the  offer ;  implying  that  no  natural  impossibility 
lay  in  the  way,  as  in  the  supposed  case  of  the  pearl. 
Had  it  only  been  true  that  the  feast  would  have  been 
so  prepared  for  them  had  it  been  foreseen  that  they 
would  accept  it,  what  was  said  was  palpably  false. 
Nor  can  it  be  alleged  that  this  was  only  a  parable. 
The  plain  and  direct  language  of  the  Gospel  to  those 
who  remain  unsanctified,  is  exactly  the  same.  The 
individuals  of  that  number  are  expressly  told  to-day, 
that  the  atonement  has  been,  not  would  have  been,  ac- 
cepted/or them,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  place  remission 
within  their  reach.  Without  the  least  reference  to 
foreknowledge,  and  as  the  purpose  of  atonement  now 
stands,  they  are  told  that  they,  the  present  capable 
agents,  (and  they  are  just  as  capable  as  though  a  dif- 
ferent result  had  been  foreseen,)  can  receive  the  bene- 
fit only  by  believing  ;  that  it  is  their  indispensable 
duty  to  make  it  their  own ;  and  that  if  they  fail  to  ap- 
propriate it  to  themselves,  they  shall  be  eternally 
punished  for  that  most  unreasonable  neglect.  All  this 
is  said  to  them  to-day,  just  as  foreknowledge  and  the 
purpose  of  atonement  now  stand.  And  if  it  is  not  so, 
the  report  is  not  according  to  truth,  and  the  command 
and  subsequent  punishment  are — what  I  will  not 
impute  to  the  righteous  Governour  of  the  world. 


2  G  2 


354  INFLUENCE  [pART  HI. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

ACTUAL  INFLUENCE    OF  THE  ATONEMENT  UPON  ALL. 

The  third  proposition  laid  down  in  the  plan  of  the 
argument  was,  that  the  atonement  so  changed  the  re- 
lations of  all  men  to  the  divine  law,  as  to  render  their 
pardon  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  in  case 
they  hear  the  Gospel  and  believe.  Before  I  proceed 
to  the  proof  of  this  proposition,  I  wish  to  draw  the 
reader's  attention  closely  to  the  following  remarks. 

(1.)  If  it  is  allowed  that  the  atonement  did  change 
the  relations  of  all  men  to  the  divine  law,  in  this  pre- 
cise respect,  that  it  rendered  their  actual  pardon  con- 
sistent with  the  honour  of  the  law  if  they  would  be- 
lieve ;  the  whole  is  granted  that  any  one  pleads  for, 
as  respects  the  actual  influence  of  the  atonement  on 
those  who  perish.  The  only  remaining  question  then 
will  be,  how  came  it  to  have  such  an  influence  on 
all? 

(2.)  If  the  atonement  did  render  the  pardon  of  all 
men  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  in  case 
they  would  believe,  then  it  essentially  changed  the 
relations  of  all  men  to  the  divine  law  as  it  did  not  that, 
of  devils.  In  their  natural  relation  as  transgressors, 
they  could  not  have  been  pardoned  consistently  with 
the  honour  of  the  law  even  had  they  returned  to  holi- 
ness. This  was  the  very  reason  why  an  atonement 
was  necessary.  Had  it  been  consistent  with  the  ho- 
nour of  the  law  to  pardon  sinners  on  their  mere  return 
to  holiness,  their  actual  pardon  might  have  been  ac- 
complished by  the  mission  of  the  Spirit  without  an  ex- 
piation for  sin.  Devils  still  retain  this  natural  relation 
to  the  law ;  and  should  they  return  to  holiness,  (a  sup- 


CHAP.  IV.]  UPON  ALL.  355 

position  allowable  even  of  them  as  moral  agents,)  they 
could  not  be  pardoned.  If  then  the  atonement  did  render 
the  pardon  of  all  men  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the 
law  in  case  they  would  believe,  it  essentially  changed 
the  relation  of  all  men  to  the  law  as  it  did  not  that  of 
devils. 

(3.)  If  the  relations  of  all  men  to  the  divine  law  are 
thus  changed,  or  if  their  pardon  has  become  consistent 
with  the  honour  of  the  law  in  case  they  will  believe, 
this  change  has  been  wrought  by  the  atonement.  No- 
thing else  has  taken  place  to  produce  it ;*■  nothing  else 
could.  If  any  thing  but  an  infinitely  dignified  sacri- 
fice could  have  rendered  the  pardon  of  men  consistent 
with  the  honour  of  the  law  on  any  terms,  the  Son  of 
God  would  not  have  died. 

(4.)  If  the  relations  of  all  men  to  the  divine  law  are 
not  thus  changed,  or  if  their  pardon  has  not  become 
consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  their  faith,  then  a  part  could  not  be  pardoned 
even  should  they  believe.  Believe  what  ?  The  pro- 
mise and  oath  of  God  that  they  shall  be  pardoned  if 
they  do  believe.  Had  not  that  promise  been  made, 
there  would  have  been  no  more  foundation  for  their 
faith  than  for  that  of  devils  ;  and  it  would  have  been  ut- 
terly without  a  meaning  to  talk  of  their  being  pardon- 
ed in  case  they  would  believe.  The  very  supposition 
of  its  being  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  for 
them  to  be  pardoned  if  they  believe,  implies  that  there 
is  something  in  relation  to  their  own  ^salvation  for 
them  to  believe.  It  implies  that  the  promise  of  God 
has  assured  them  that  they  shall  be  pardoned  by  the 
atonement  if  they  do  believe.  And  this  promise  could 
not  have  been  made  had  not  the  atonement  rendered 
their  actual  pardon  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the 
law  on  the  supposition  of  their  faith.     This  leads  di- 


356  INFLUENCE  [PART  III, 

rectly  to  the  proof  of  the  proposition  at  the  head  of  the 
chapter. 

This  proof  is  contained  in  the  two  propositions 
which  went  before ;  viz.  that  in  the  offer  and  promise, 
the  benefit  of  the  atonement  is  actually  given  and  made 
over  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  on  the  condition  of 
their  faith  ;  and  that  they  are  laid  under  obligations  to 
make  it  their  own,  and  are  punished  for  throwing  it 
away.  It  ought  to  be  distinctly  noticed,  that  if  these 
two  facts  prove  that  the  relation  of  all  men  to  the  di- 
vine law  is  changed,  they  prove  that  it  was  changed 
by  the  atonement.  The  offer  and  promise  are  of  par- 
don through  that  very  sacrifice ;  and  the  faith  com- 
manded is  a  reliance  on  that  expiation  and  promise. 
Let  us  then  consider  the  argument,  first,  as  it  is  drawn 
from  the  grant,  and  secondly,  as  it  is  deduced  from  the 
obligation. 

(1.)  As  it  is  drawn  from  the  grant.  The  benefit  of 
the  atonement  is  offered  to  all.  Should  all  accept,  (and 
this  supposition  is  allowable,)  would  they  or  would 
they  not  find  their  pardon  to  be  consistent  with  the  ho- 
nour of  the  law?  If  not,  they  might  justly  complain  of  a 
grievous  deception.  If  the  king  who  invited  the  guests 
to  the  marriage  feast,  had  made  provision  only  for 
half,  you  would  certainly  have  charged  him  with  du- 
plicity and  mockery.  True,  you  say,  because  he 
could  not  foresee  how  many  would  come.  And  has  it 
not  been  proved  that  all  the  measures  of  a  moral  go- 
vernment have  the  same  consistency  of  relation  as 
though  there  was  no  foreknowledge  ?  The  character 
in  which  God  stands  related  to  moral  agents,  is  pre- 
served as  consistent  with  itself  as  that  of  any  wise  and 
just  earthly  prince  can  be.  The  Moral  Governour,  to 
whom  appertained  both  the  atonement  and  offer,  would 
no  more  invite  a  greater  number  than  he  had  provided 


HAP.  IV.]  UPON  ALL.  357 

for,  than  would  any  fair  and  honourable  man.  If  am- 
ple provision  is  not  made  for  all,  that  class  of  Chris- 
tians alone  take  consistent  ground  who  deny  the  uni- 
versality of  the  offer.  Again,  in  the  offer  and  promise 
there  is  a  foundation  laid  for  the  faith  of  all.  And  can 
it  be  supposed  that  there  is  a  foundation  laid  in  the 
grant  for  all  to  believe,  and  no  foundation  in  the  atone- 
ment for  their  faith  to  profit  them  ?  Then  they  stand 
after  all  exactly  on  the  ground  of  devils, — with  this 
difference  against  them,  that  they  are  tantalized  with  of- 
fers, which,  should  they  attempt  to  seize  them,  would 
escape  from  their  grasp.  In  the  case  of  devils,  there  is 
no  atonement  and  no  foundation  laid  for  their  faith. 
This  is  consistent.  But  to  lay  a  foundation  for  the 
faith  of  men,  and  no  foundation  for  their  faith  to  profit 
them,  would  in  human  transactions  be  stigmatized  with 
an  epithet  which  I  dare  not  even  by  supposition  apply 
to  the  blessed  God.  That  Christ  is  offered  to  those  to 
whom  he  could  not  become  a  Saviour  'even  should 
they  believe, — to  whom  he  would  be  no  bless- 
ing if  they  should  receive  him,  is  what  I  hope  no  one 
will  continue  to  maintain.  A  foundation  for  faith,  and 
no  foundation  for  faith  to  profit !  I  wonder  that  single 
thought  should  have  left  a  remaining  doubt  below  the 
sun.  No  foundation  for  faith  to  profit!  But  there  is. 
The  promise  expressly  affirms  it.  The  oath  of  God 
declares  to  every  man  who  hears  the  Gospel,  that  if  he 
will  believe  his  faith  shall  profit  him  through  the  ex- 
piation of  Christ.  That  such  a  foundation  then  is 
laid  in  the  atonement,  we  have  no  less  proof  than  the 
oath  of  God.  And  what  fact  in  the  universe  was  ever 
supported  by  better  evidence  ?  At  any  rate,  if  the 
promise  is  true,  all  men  would  be  pardoned  by  the 
atonement  should  they  believe,  even  if  the  ex- 
piation has  not  rendered  their  discharge   consistent 


358  INFLUENCE  [PART  III, 

with  the  honour  of  the  law.  They  must  be  pardoned 
or  the  oath  of  God  fails  :  and  if  the  atonement  has  not 
rendered  their  acquittal  consistent  with  the  honour  of 
the  law  on  the  supposition  of  their  faith,  the  plain  truth 
is,  that  the  death  of  Christ  does  not  support  the  grant 
which  has  been  founded  on  it. 

(2.)  Another  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  uni- 
versal command  to  believe,  and  the  punishment  of 
unbelief.  What  is  the  faith  thus  enjoined  on  every 
man  ?  A  belief  that  God  will  be  to  him  "  a  Rewarder" 
if  he  diligently  seeks  him*.  It  is  a  firm  persuasion 
that  God  will  pardon  and  save  him  through  the  atone- 
ment and  righteousness  of  Christ  if  he  believes,  and 
that  his  acquittal  and  salvation,  in  such  an  event,  have 
been  rendered  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law 
by  the  sufferings  and  obedience  of  his  Redeemer.  On 
every  man,  without  waiting  for  evidence  of  his  elec- 
tion, such  a  faith  is  enjoined  by  the  positive  command 
of  God.  And  does  God  command  men  to  believe  a 
lie  ?  And  does  he  punish  them  with  eternal  destruc- 
tion for  not  crediting  a  falsehood  ? 

Upon  the  top  of  these  two  arguments  I  will  bring- 
forward  the  general  confession  of  the  Church.  That 
the  atonement  has  reconciled  with  the  honour  of  the 
law  the  pardon  of  every  man  if  he  will  believe,  is  a 
fact  acknowledged  in  the  daily  practice  of  every  minis- 
ter of  the  Gospel.  None  of  us  hesitates  to  say  to  an 
assembly  of  unregenerate  men,  among  whom  we  al- 
ways presume  there  are  some  of  the  non-elect,  if  you 
will  all  believe  you  shall  be  pardoned  through  the 
atonement  of  Christ ;  which  is  to  say,  that  the  atone- 
ment has  reconciled  with  the  honour  of  the  law  the 
pardon  of  every  soul  in  the  assembly  if  he  will  be- 
lieve.    We  go  to  the  next  assembly  and  address  them 

*  Heb.  11.  6. 


CHAP.  IV.]  UPON    ALL.  369 

in  the  same  words.  And  if  the  whole  race  of  Adam 
were  living  at  once,  not  one  of  us,  1  suppose,  would 
scruple  to  say  the  same  to  all.  And  when  we  take 
the  race  in  detail,  by  conversing  with  individuals  in 
private,  we  say  to  the  unregenerate  as  fast  as  they 
come,  if  you  will  believe  you  shall  be  pardoned  through 
the  death  of  Christ;  which  is  to  say,  the  atonement 
has  rendered  it  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law 
for  you  in  particular  to  be  pardoned  if  you  will  be- 
lieve. And  were  it  possible  for  the  whole  race  of 
Adam  to  pass  in  succession  before  us,  not  one  of  us 
would  hesitate  to  say  the  same  to  every  individual. 

If  it  be  alleged  that  we  should  thus  speak  from  not 
knowing  who  the  elect  are,  I  answer,  Christ  him- 
self, who  did  know,  spoke  in  the  same  manner.  He 
said  to  every  one,  if  thou  believe  thou  shalt  be  saved. 
How  often,  may  we  suppose,  he  pronounced  this  pro- 
mise wTith  an  eye  fixed  on  Judas. 

The  Synod  of  Dort,  though  they  ascribe  this  gene- 
ral influence  of  the  atonement  to  its  efficiency,  every 
where  represent  that  it  reconciled  with  the  honour  of 
the  law  the  pardon  of  every  man  if  he  will  believe,  a 
thing  which  they  never  said  of  devils.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  language  of  the  whole  Synod.  "  The  pro- 
position that  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour  died  for  all  and 
each,  is  ambiguous  through  imperfection.  If  you  add 
believers,  the  proposition  will  be  clear  and  true  ;  if 
men,  it  remains  ambiguous :  for  it  can  be  understood 
either  of  the  amplitude  of  the  merit  of  Christ's  death, 
which  is  in  the  highest  degree  sufficient  for  the  recon- 
ciliation of  all  men,  or  of  its  efficacy,  actually  recon- 
ciling all  men.  In  the  former  sense  the  proposition  is 
indeed  true ;  for  the  death  of  Christ,  in  point  of  its 
amplitude  and  power,  is  a  remedy  in  the  highest  de- 
gree sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  all  men  and 


360  INFLUENCE  [PART  III, 

every  man  ;  nor  to  actual  reconciliation  is  any  thing 
wanting  to  all  and  each  who  receive  it  by  faith.  In 
this  sense  Christ  may  be  said  to  have  died  for  all  men 
and  every  man.  And  in  the  same  sense  the  sayings 
of  Scripture,  where  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  for  all, 
(1  Tim.  2.  6.)  to  have  tasted  death  for  all,  (Heb.  2.  9.) 
to  be  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the   whole  world. 

(1   John   2.   2.)    ARE     COMMONLY     AND     NOT     IMPROPERLY 

understood,  though  they  may  be  taken  also  in  a  more 
restricted  sense*."  The  Synod  affirm  "  that  as  to 
the  sufficiency  of  his  ransom  and  merit,  Christ  died 

AND  WILLED  TO  DIE  FOR  ALL  AND  EACH  :"  and  they 

add,  "  If  they,  [the  Remonstrants,]  deny  their  agree- 
ment [with  this,]  how  do  they  not  blaspheme  the  death 
of  the  Son  of  God  as  an  insufficient  ransomt  ?"  Now 
this  is  all  we  mean.  Christ  died  and  willed  to  die  for 
all  and  each,  so  far  as  to  render  their  pardon  possible 
and  certain  if  they  would  believe ;  that  is,  he  died 
and  willed  to  die  for  all  and  each  as  moral  agents. 

The  delegates  from  Great  Britain  say,  "  God,  pity- 
ing the  lapsed  human  race,  sent  his  Son,  who  gave 
himself  as  the  price  of  redemption  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world.— Christ  therefore  so  died  for  all  men. 
that  all  and  each,  faith  intervening,  can  obtain  remis- 
sion of  sins  and  eternal  Jife  by  virtue  of  that  ransom. 
— In  this  merit  of  Christ's  death  is  founded  the  uni- 
versal Gospel  promise,  according  to  which  all  who 
believe  in  Christ  do  actually  obtain  remission  of  sins 
and  eternal  life  J." 

The  delegates  from  Hesse  say,  "  About  the  first  pro- 
position, [viz.  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  'he 
world,  died  for  all  and  each  of  mankind,]  we  would 
not  contend  with  any  man ;  since  the  Sacred  Writings 

*  Ads  of  Synod,  Part  I.  p.  247,  248. 1  p.  248,  249. 1  Part 

II.  p.  100,  101.. 


CHAP.   IV.]  UPON  ALL.  361 

expressly  say  thatChrist  died  for  all, (but  never  for  each,) 
and  is  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  The 
true  meaning  of  which  phraseology  we  think  to  be  this  : 
that  so  great  is  the  worth,  power,  value,  and  price  of 
the  passion  and  death  of  Christ,  that  it  is  abundantly 
sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  all  men  and  every 
man,  as  many  as  have  lived,  do  live,  or  shall  hereaf- 
ter live. — This  passion  and  death  were  necessarily  of 
infinite  value,  insomuch  that  all  and  each  of  mankind, 
provided  only  they  cleave   to  Christ  by  a  true  faith, 
will,  through  or  on  account  of  his  passion  and  death, 
be  received  into  the  grace  and  favour  of  God,  and  ob- 
tain remission  of  sins,  righteousness,  and  eternal  life. 
Whence  the  word  of  the  Gospel  concerning  Christ  Je- 
sus crucified,  is  proclaimed  to  the  elect  and  reprobate 
respectively,  and  all  are  commanded  to  believe  in  him, 
with  this  promise  subjoined,  that  all  who  do  believe  in 
him  shall  obtain  reconciliation  with  God,  remission  of 
their    sins,    righteousness,    and    eternal    salvation." 
u  They,  [the  Remonstrants,]  have  added  this  declara- 
tion, that  Christ  by  his  death  procured  reconciliation, 
not  for  the  elect  alone, — but  also  for  all  other  men,  and 
that  according  to   the  counsel  and  decree  of  the  Fa- 
ther :   which  wor^s  are  capable  of  a  double  meaning. 
The  first  is,  that  it  was  the  counsel  and  decree  of  God 
the  Father  that  Christ  by  his  passion  and  death  should 
pay  such  a  ransom,  that,  in  itself  considered,  it  should 
be  of  so  great  worth,  and  power,  and  value,  that  it  should 
be  abundantly  sufficient  to  reconcile  all  and  each  of 
mankind  to  God. — And  in  this  sense  it  is  true  ;  nor 
was  it  ever  denied  by  the  doctors   of  the  Reformed 
Church.    For  such  as  the  ransom  of  Christ — in  itself  is, 
such  God  the  Father  from  eternity  willed  it  to  beV7 
The   delegates  from  the  Wetteraw  say,  "  Christ  is 

*  Acts  of  Syaod,  Part  II.    p.  114,  116. 

2H 


362  INFLUENCE  [PART  I£JU 

an  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  so  far  as 
relates  to  the  worth  and  sufficiency  of  his  ransom." 
"  When  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  for  all,  this  can  be 
understood  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  merit,  or  the  magni- 
tude of  the  price."  They  quote  with  approbation  from 
one  who  says,  that  "  the  merit  of  Christ  has  an  equal 
bearing  on  all  as  to  its  sufficiency,  but  not  as  to  its  effi- 
cacy.— The  sufficiency  and  magnitude  of  the  ransom 
of  Christ,  as  relates  to  the  reprobate,  has  a  double 
end;  one  in  itself  and  the  other  by  accident.  The  end 
in  itself  is,  that  God  may  testify  that  he  is  not  delight- 
ed with  the  perdition  of  men,  seeing  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son  that  every  one  who  believes  in  him  may 
not  perish  but  have  eternal  life*  The  end  by  acci- 
dent is,  that  by  means  of  its  magnitude  and  sufficiency 
the  reprobate  may  be  without  excuse. "  And  they  add 
themselves,  "  For  these  perish,  not  by  the  fault  of 
Christ,  but  by  their  own,  since  by  their  own  unbelief 
they  reject  the  benefits  of  Christ  offered  in  the  Gos- 
pel." "  The  reprobate  are  bound  to  believe  this? 
that  the  merit  of  Christ  is  of  so  great  worth  that  it  is 
able  to  profit  them  also  :  and  it  would  indeed  profit 
them  if  they  would  believe  the  Gospel  and  repent*." 

Matthias  Martinius,  one  of  the  delegates  from  Bre- 
men, says,  "  There  is  in  God  a  certain  common  love 
to  man  with  which   he   regarded  the  whole   lapsed 
human  race,  and  seriously  willed  the  salvation  of  all 
The  exercise  of  this  love  to  man  appears  in  the  out 
ward  call  to  the  elect  and  reprobate  without  distinc 
tion. — Jn  this  call  are  to  be  distinguished  these  things 
the   historical  narrative  concerning  Christ,  the  com 
mand  to  believe,  the  interdiction  of  unbelief,  the  pro 
mise  of  eternal  life  made  to  believers,  the  threatening 
of  damnation  to  the  unbelieving.     And  if  any  one  does 

*  Acts  of  Synod.,  Part  II.  p.  125,  128,  128,  129. 


CHAP.  IV.]  UPON  ALL.  o6\i 

not  believe,  the  issue  of  this  call  is  condemnation,  and 
expressly  for  this  reason,  because  he  does  not  believe 
in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  (John  3. 
18.)  But  this  issue  in  itself  is  not  intended  by  God, 
but  follows  by  accident  through  the  fault  of  man. — 
Moreover,  this  outward  call — necessarily  requires  ante- 
cedent  to  itself  these  things  ;  the  promise  and  mission 
of  the  Son,  (formerly  future,  now  past,)  and  redemp- 
tion$  that  is,  the  payment  of  a  price  to  atone  for  sins, 
and  God  rendered  so  placable  as  to  require  no  other 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  any  man,  content  with  this 
only  most  perfect  one,  and  that  for  the  reconciliation 
of  men  there  be  no  need  of  any  other  satisfaction,  any 
other  merit  for  them,  provided,  (what  in  remedies  must 
be  done,)  there  be  an  application  of  this  common  and 
salutary  medicine.  If  this  redemption  is  not  supposed 
to  be  a  common  blessing  bestowed  on  all  men,  the  in- 
discriminate and  promiscuous  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel, committed  to  the  apostles  to  be  exercised  among 
all  nations,  will  have  no  foundation  in  truth.  But 
since  we  abhor  to  say  this,  it  ought  to  be  seen  to  how 
their  assertions  agree  with  the  most  known  and  lucid 
principles,  who  unqualifiedly  deny  that  Christ  died  for 
all.  Nor  here  will  it  be  enough  to  assert  such  a  suffi- 
ciency of  redemption  as  could  be  enough  ;  but  it  is  al- 
together such  as  is  enough,  and  such  as  God  and 
Christ  have  considered  enough.  For  otherwise  the 
Gospel  command  and  promise  are  destroyed.  For  how 
from  a  benefit,  sufficient  indeed,  but  not  designed  for 
me  by  a  sincere  intention,  can  the  necessity  of  believ- 
ing that  it  belongs  to  me  be  deduced?  What  then 
shall  we  call  this  redemption  ?  This  redemption  is  in 
the  new  world  what  creation  is  in  the  old :  to  wit,  as 
the  creation  of  man  is  not  the  image  of  God,  but  is 
that  foundation  without  which  the  image  of  God  could 


364  INFLUENCE  [PART  III. 

not  have  place  in  him  ;  so  also  redemption  is  no  part  of 
the  image  of  God,  but  is  that  in  which  is  founded  the 
whole  exercise  of  the  prophetic  and  kingly  offices  of 
Christ,  and  his  priestly  intercession.  But  care  must 
be  taken  not  to  carry  this  comparison  too  far.  This 
redemption  is  the  payment  of  a  price  due  for  us  cap- 
tives, not  that  we  should  go  forth  from  captivity  at  all 
events,  but  that  we  should  be  able  and  be  bound  to  go 
forth  :  and  in  fact  we  should  go  forth  if  we  would  be- 
lieve in  the  Redeemer,  acknowledge  his  benefit,  and 
thoroughly  become  members  of  him  as  the  Head. 
And  therefore  upon  whatever  man  we  fall,  to  him  we 
are  the  messengers  and  publishers  of  this  salutary 
grace,  (saving  however  to  believers  only,)  from  the 
very  office  of  piety  and  charity."  "  The  Lord  even 
merited  grace  for  all  men  ;  but  not  for  all  men  that 
grace  which  depends  on  particular  election.  What 
then  ?  That  which  is  promised  on  condition  of  faith. 
For  certainly  to  all  men  is  promised  remission  of  sins 
and  eternal  life  if  they  believe.  Here  therefore  it  ap- 
pears that  a  conditional  remission  of  sins  and  salva- 
tion belong  to  all,  but  not  a  promise  to  give  strength 
and  excite  the  actions  by  which  that  condition  is  ful- 
filled. For  these  things  men  are  bound  by  the  power 
of  a  divine  command  to  perform  themselves  ;  and  they 
who  are  not  able  to  do  this,  are  not  able  through  their 
own  fault."  "  Christ  merited  the  favour  of  God  for 
all,  to  be  actually  obtained  if  they  believe. — This  his 
favour  God  declares  in  common  in  the  word  of  the 
Gospel."  "  Christ  died  for  all  in  regard  to  the  merit 
and  sufficiency  of  the  ransom,  for  believers  only  in  re- 
gard to  the  application  and  efficacy.  In  support  of 
which  very  sentiment  many  testimonies  of  the  fathers, 
and  schoolmen,  and  more  recent  doctors  of  the  Church, 
can  be  cited  when  there  is  need."     "  He  who  despises 


CHAP.  IV.]  UPON  ALL*  365 

the  offering  of  Christ  made  on  the  cross,  loses  all  the 
right  which  he  might  have  had  in  it,  and  thereby  ag- 
gravates damnation  to  himself: — and  the  Gospel, 
which  in  itself  is  a  savour  of  life  unto  life,  becomes  to 
the  unbelieving  a  savour  of  death  unto  death,  by  acci- 
dent, through  their  own  fault."  Among  the  proposi- 
tions which  Martinius  pronounces  false,  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  Christ  died  in  no  sense  for  them  that  pe- 
rish ;"  and,  "  The  decree  of  particular  election,  or 
reprobation  of  certain  persons,  cannot  consist  with  the 
universality  of  Christ's  death*." 

Henry  Iselburg,  another  delegate  from  Bremen, 
says,  "  Such  is  the  worth  and  virtue  of  the  passion; 
death,  and  merit  of  Christ,  that,  by  itself  and  in  its  own 
nature,  it  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  atone  for  and  take 
away  all  the  sins  of  all  men,  and  to  obtain  and  confer 
on  all  and  each,  without  exception,  reconciliation  with 
God,  grace,  righteousness,  and  eternal  life.  And 
therefore  the  remedy  of  sin  and  death,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  is  proposed  and  offered  by  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  not  to  certain  persons  only,  or  to  those  alone 
who  are  to  be  saved,  but  to  the  elect  and  reprobate, 
indiscriminately  ;  and  all  without  distinction  are  invi- 
ted to  a  participation  or  fruition  of  it,  and  to  eternal 
life  thereby  ;  and  all  and  each  are  sincerely  and  seri- 
ously commanded  to  believe  in  Christ,  to  live  to  him, 
and  to  come  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  truth  ;  and 
they  who  do  not  believe  in  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God 
are  justly  condemned  In  this  sense  Christ  is  rightly 
said  to  have  died  sufficiently  for  all,  as  all  who  believe 
in  him  and  seek  his  aid  are  able  and  bound  to  obtain 
reconciliation,  remission  of  sins,  and  the  inheritance  of 
eternal  life  ;  as  the  sins  of  no  mortal  are  so  great  that 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  cannot  suffice  to  atone  for  them  5 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part  II.  p.  133—139. 

2H2 


§66  INFLUENCE  [PART  III. 

as  not  one  of  the  human  race  is  alien  from  him  in  the 
same  sense  and  degree  that'  Satan  and  the  evil  angels 
are.  And  this  is  the  will  and  intention  of  God 
from  eternity,  that  the  death  of  Christ  should  be  suffi- 
cient for  all  in  such  a  sense  and  degree,  that  God  can 
require  no  other  sacrifice  or  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of 
men  but  that  one  alone,  to  atone  for  every  evil,  (per- 
manent impenitence  and  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  excepted  ;)  and  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  may 
account  and  esteem  it  in  the  highest  degree  sufficient 
to  merit  every  salutary  good,  and  that  there  may  be 
no  need  of  any  other  merit  for  men.  Wherefore  no 
one  of  the  reprobate  can  be  condemned  and  perish  for 
want  of  the  death  of  Christ,  or  because  ihere  was  not 
in  him  a  sufficient  remedy  against  destruction,  but 
each  one  through  his  own  fault  entirely*." 

Ludovicus  Crocius,  the  other  delegate  from  Bre- 
men, says,  "  So  great  is  the  worth,  price,  power,  value, 
and  sufficiency  of  the  death  of  Christ,  that  it  wants  no- 
thing at  all  to  the  purpose  of  meriting,  acquiring,  and 
obtaining  reconciliation  with  God  and  remission  of 
sins  for  all  men  and  every  man.  It  was  the  counsel, 
aim,  and  intention,  not  only  of  God  the  Father  in  de- 
livering the  Son  to  death,  but  of  the  Son  also  in  dying, 
to  acquire,  obtain,  and  merit,  by  that  most  precious 
death  and  passion,  for  all  and  each  of  human  sinners, 
that  if  they  repent  and  believe  in  Christ  when  they 
become  capable  of  instruction,  they  may  be  able  to  be 
reconciled  to  God  and  receive  remission  of  sins. 
Christ  having  suffered  and  died  according  to  his  own 
and  his  Father's  counsel,  did  by  his  death  and  passion 
merit  most  sufficiently  for  all  and  each  of  human  sin- 
ners, that  if  they  only  repent  and  believe,  they  may 
be  able  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  or  be  restored  to  his 
favour  and  bosom. — This  doctrine,  as  being  most  true. 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part,  II.  p.  141,  142. 


CHAP.  IV. J  UPON  ALL.  367 

as  being  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,  to  the  nature  of 
the  thing,  to  the  confession  of  the  Church,  (and  the 
church  of  Bremen  expressly,)  to  the  better  and  more 
common  sentiment  of  the  fathers,  and  of  the  theologians 
both  ancient  and  modern,  is  necessarily,  (as  I  believe,) 
to  be  uncorruptly  and  sacredly  retained  and  defended 
in  the  Church  of  God,  as  well  for  the  glory  of  God, 
(which  is  so  illustrated  that  his  truth  in  cailing,  his 
equity  in  commanding,  his  justice  in  threatening,  ap- 
pear to  all  who  seriously  contemplate  the  Scriptures,) 
as  for  the  edification,  growth,  and  consolation  of  the 
called  in  true  faith  and  piety,  and  finally,  for  the  sa- 
lutary avoiding  and  refutation  of  divers  heresies  which 
like  rocks  surround  this  doctrine*." 

The  Dutch  Professors  say,  "  We  confess  that  the 
merit  and  value  of  the  death  and  satisfaction  of  Christ 
is  so  great,  and  of  so  great  a  price,  as  well  on  ac- 
count of  its  perfection,  as  the  infinite  dignity  of  his  Per- 
son, that  it  is  not  only  sufficient  to  atone  for  all,  even 
the  greatest  sins  of  men,  but  also  to  save  all  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam,  though  they  were  many  more,  provided 
they  embrace  it  by  a  true  faith.- — It  is  not  even  to  be 
doubted  that  it  was  the  intention  of  God  the  Father  in 
delivering  his  Son,  and  of  Christ  in  offering  himself, 
that  he  should  pay  such  and  so  great  a  ransom  :  for 
whatever  Christ  accomplished  by  his  death,  this  he 
accomplished  according  to  the  Father's  intention  and 
his  ownt." 

The  delegates  from  the  synod  of  G elders  say, 
"  What  is  here  asserted,  (that  Christ  died  for  all,  and 
that  none  but  believers  are  actually  made  partakers 
of  remission,)  if  it  is  spoken  of  adults,  we  believe  it 
with  the  whole  heart:  for  the  Scripture  inculcates  this 
so  often,  and  in  such  express  terms,  that  no  one,  un- 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part  II.  p.  150,  151.— t  Part  III.  p.  121. 


369  INFLUENCE  [PART  III. 

less  he  is  manifestly  impious,  can  deny  or  call  it  in 
question.  We  add, — that  the  power  and  worth  of  the 
passion  of  Christ  was  in  itself  sufficient  to  take  away 
the  sins  of  all  men  and  every  man*." 

The  delegates  from  Friesland,  complaining  of  the 
unfairness  of  the  Remonstrants,  say,  "  Neither  does 
it  escape  them  that  the  doctrine  of  the  sufficiency  of 
the  merit  of  Christ's  death  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  all 
and  each  of  mankind,  if  all  and  each  would  believe, 
has  hitherto  been  constantly  and  firmly  held  and  taught 
in  all  the  Dutch  churches  without  a  dissenting  voice. 
They  are  not  ignorant,  moreover,  that  this  distinction 
has  been  used  in  a  sound  sense  by  very  many  of  the 
orthodox,  that  Christ  died  for  all  and  each  in  respect 
to  the  sufficiency  of  the  ransom,  but  for  the  elect  and 
believers  in  regard  to  its  efficacyt." 

The  delegates  from  the  synod  of  Groningen  and 
Omlands  say,  "  Here  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  ques- 
tion is  not  about  the  sufficiency  of  Christ's  death  ;  for 
we  affirm  without  hesitation,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
possesses  so  great  power  and  value,  that  it  is  adundant- 
ly  sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  as  well 
actual  as  original ;  and  that  no  one  of  the  reprobate 
perishes  for  want  of  the  death  of  Christ,  or  through 
its  insufficiency!." 

The  delegates  from  the  synod  of  the  French  Ne- 
therlands say,  u  The  price  of  redemption  which  Christ 
offered  to  his  Father,  considered  in  and  by  itself,  is 
most  valuable  and  sufficient ;  so  that  all  might  be  re- 
deemed by  the  value  and  worth  of  Christ's  death  if 
all  and  each  would  believe||." 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part  III.  p.  127.— +  p.  172.— i  p.   193. 

II  p.  210. — The  author  is  the  more  assured  of  having  done  justice  to  the 
sentiments  of  the  Synod,  for  having  submitted  his  translation  to  the  clas- 
sical eye  of  Samuel  Baldwin  Esq.  of  Newark,  an  elegant  scholar, 
and  to  whom  he  is  happy  thus  publicly  to  acknowledge  himself  in- 
debted. 


CHAP.  V.]   AGREEMENT  OF  THE  SYNOD  OF  DORT.    369 


CHAPTER  V. 

SYNOD  OF  DORT  AGREED  WITH  US  AS  TO  THE  ACTUAL 
INFLUENCE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  ON  THE  NON-ELECT, 
AND  THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  SACRED  PERSONS. 

In  every  dispute  it  goes  half-way  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion, to  know  precisely  the  points  in  which  the  par- 
ties differ  and  in  which  they  agree.  In  the  present 
controversy  it  is  of  the  last  importance  to  know  this, 
as  in  the  main  the  parties  have  certainly  been  con- 
tending for  different  truths  ;  one  filling  their  eye  with 
the  secret  purpose  of  God  about  the  application  of 
the  atonement,  the^other  with  the  influence  which  the 
atonement  had  upon-  the  relations  of  agents.  On  the 
former  subject  there  can  be  no  diversity  of  opinion 
among  us ;  and  I  am  happy  now  to  be  able  to  show 
that  on  the  latter  subject,  in  the  Calvinistic  world  at 
large,  there  is  no  dispute. 

The  Synod  of  Dort  was  a  fair  representative  of  the 
Calvinistic  world  one  century  after  the  commencement 
of  the  Reformation.  Their  opinions  will  certainly  dis- 
close what  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  were,  es- 
pecially as  they  tell  us  that  their  churches  had  uniform- 
ly held  the  same  belief  from  the  beginning.  And  they 
must  also  be  considered  no  contemptible  witnesses  of 
the  sentiments  of  the  school-men  and  fathers. 

In  the  Synod  there  was  not  a  perfect  harmony  of 
opinion,  some  having  more  enlarged  vie^s  than  others 
of  the  principles  of  a  moral  government.  It  is  fair 
then  to  discriminate  between  the  concessions  which 
came  from  different  sides  of  the  house,  and  after  pre- 
senting those  which  were  the  highest,  to  give  those 
which  appear  to  have  expressed  the  views  of  the  Sy» 
nod  at  large. 


370  AGREEMENT  OF  THE  [PART  III* 

Of  all  the  concessions  those  of  the  delegates  from 
Great  Britain  and  Bremen  were  the  most  ample.  The 
former  say,  that  God  pitied  the  human  race,  and  sent 
his  Son  who  gave  himself  as  the  price  of  redemption 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  died  for  all,  so 
that  all  by  believing  may  be  saved.  The  latter  give 
their  opinions  separately,  but  they  are  agreed  in  these 
points  :  that  it  was  the  eternal  counsel  of  God  that 
Christ  should  die  for  all  in  point  of  the  sufficiency  of 
his  atonement ;  and  that  it  should  not  be  such  a  suffi- 
ciency as  would  have  been  enough  had  other  circum- 
stances concurred,  but  such  as  would  actually  be 
enough,  and  such  that  no  other  satisfaction  could  be  de- 
manded of  any  sinner  provided  he  would  believe. 
They  maintain  that  no  man  is  alien  from  Christ  in  the 
same  sense  and  degree  that  devils  are,  and  that  none 
perish  for  want  of  a  complete  expiation.  Two  of  these 
delegates  unite  in  saying,  that  it  was  the  counsel  of 
God  that  Christ  should  merit  a  conditional  salvation 
for  all  ;  and  affirm  that  this  doctrine  was  supported  by 
"  the  better  and  more  common  sentiment  of  the  fa- 
thers, and  theologians  ancient  and  modern,"  and  by 
"  the  confession  of  the  Church."  One  of  them  is  still 
more  explicit,  lie  asserts  that  God  loved  the  whole 
human  race  and  seriously  willed  their  salvation  ;  that 
the  price  of  redemption  was  actually  paid  for  all,  and 
sincerely  intended  for  all,  and  that  the  aggravated 
misery  of  those  who  perish  was  not  in  itself  designed, 
but  follows  by  accident  through  the  fault  of  man  ;  (he 
is  speaking  in  the  dialect  of  a  moral  government ;)  that 
had  not  such  a  conditional  salvation  been  provided 
for  all,  the  offer  a'nd  promise  would  not  have  been 
founded  in  truth,  nor  the  command  reasonable  ;  that  to 
make  out  all  this,  it  was  not  necessary  that  faith  should 
have  been  procured  for  all,  for  this  men  are  bound 


•  HAP.  V.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  371 

by  a  divine  command  to  exercise  themselves,  and  if 
they  cannot  it  is  their  own  fault ;  that  therefore  elec- 
tion and  reprobation  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  uni- 
versality of  the  atonement ;  and  that  the  unqualified  as- 
sertion that  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  is  one  of  those 
propositions  which  contravene  the  most  known  and 
obvious  principles. 

But  there  are  two  things  which  the  Synod  assert 
with  a  general  voice. 

(1.)  That  those  texts  which  declare  that  Christ  died 
for  all,  "  are  commonly  and  not  improperly  under- 
stood" in  a  literal  sense.  Some  of  fhe  middle  men, 
and  even  some  of  the  strongest  advocates  for  a  limit- 
ed atonement,  distinctly  support  this  construction  of 
the  texts.  The  delegates  from  Hesse  say,  "  About 
the  first  proposition,  [viz.  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world,  died  for  all  and  each  of  mankind,] 
we  would  not  contend  with  any  man  ;  since  the  Sacred 
Writings  expressly  say  that  Christ  died  for  all,  (but 
never  for  each,)  and  is  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world."  The  delegates  from  the  synod  of 
Gelders  say,  "  What  is  here  asserted,  (that  Christ 
died  for  all,  and  that  none  but  believers  are  actually 
made  partakers  of  remission,)  if  it  is  spoken  of  adults, 
we  believe  it  with  the  whole  heart :  for  the  Scripture 
inculcates  this  so  often,  and  in  such  express  terms, 
that  no  one,  unless  he  is  manifestly  impious,  can  deny 
or  call  it  in  question."  The  delegates  from  Friesland, 
complaining  of  the  unfairness  of  the  Remonstrants, 
say,  "  They  are  not  ignorant,  moreover,  that  this  dis- 
tinction has  been  used  in  a  sound  sense  by  very  many 
of  the  orthodox,  that  Christ  died  for  all  and  each  in 
respect  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  ransom,  but  for  the 
elect  and  believers  in  regard  to  its  efficacy." 

(2.)    That  the  atonement   was   sufficient  for  all. 


372  AGREEMENT  0F-THE  [PART  III. 

This  they  understood  to  be  the  real  meaning  of  those 
texts  which  speak  of  a  universal  expiation.  Now 
every  thing  depends  on  ascertaining  what  the  Synod 
meant  by  this  sufficiency.  Was  it  merely  a  sufficien- 
cy of  the  Victim,  which  would  have  been  enough  had 
he  been  offered  for  all,  or  a  sufficiency  of  actual  atone- 
ment?  Was  it  such  a  sufficiency  as  could  have  been 
enough,  or  such  as  really  was  enough  ?  Was  it  such  a 
sufficiency  as  still  loft  a  natural  impossibility  in  the  way 
of  the  pardon  of  the  non-elect  even  should  they  be- 
lieve, or  a  sufficiency,  (even  as  foreknowledge  and  the 
purpose  of  atonement  then  stood.)  which  placed  re- 
mission completely  within  their  reach  as  moral  agents, 
and-  made  it  possible  and  certain  that  they  would  be 
pardoned  if  they  would  believe  ?  The  Synod  shall 
decide.  They  affirm  with  one  voice,  "that  as  to  the 
sufficiency  of  his  ransom  and  merit,  Christ  died  and 
willed  to  die  for  all  and  each."  "  The  death  of 
Christ,  in  point  of  its  amplitude  and  power,  is  a  remedy 
in  the  highest  degree  sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of 
all  men  and  every  man ;  nor  to  actual  reconciliation  is 
any  thing  wanting  to  all  and  each  who  receive  it  by 
faith."  It  "  is  the  only  and  most  perfect  sacrifice  and 
satisfaction  for  sins,  of  infinite  value  and  worth,  abun- 
dantly sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world*."  Or  as  the  same  idea  is  amplified  by  some 
of  the  members,  "This  is  the  will  and  intention  of 
God  from  eternity,  that  the  death  of  Chrift  should  be 
sufficient  for  all  in  such  a  sense  and  degree,  that  God 
can  require  no  other  sacrifice  or  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  men  but  that  one  alone, — and  that  there  may 
be  no  need  of  any  other  merit  for  men  :"  so  that  none 
perish  "  for  w;ant  of  the  death  of  Christ."  The  dele- 
gates from  Hesse  say,  "  His  passion  and  death  were 

*  Acts  of  Synod,  Part.  I.  p.  289. 


CHAP.  V.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  373 

necessarily  of  infinite  value,  insomuch  that  all  and 
each  of  mankind,  provided  only  they  cleave  to  Christ 
by  a  true  faith,  will,  through  or  on  account  of  his 
passion  and  death,  be  received  into  the  grace  and 
favour  of  God."  They  add,  "  It  was  the  counsel  and 
decree  of  God  the  Father  that  Christ  by  his  passion 
and  death  should  pay  such  a  ransom. — Nor  was  it  ever 
denied  by  the  doctors  of  the  Reformed  Church.''  The 
delegates  from  the  Wetteraw  say,  "  Christ  is  an  expia- 
tion for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  so  far  as  relates  to 
the  worth  and  sufficiency  of  his  ransom."  The  end  of 
this  sufficiency  in  itself  considered,  say  they,  is,  "  that 
God  may  testify  that  he  is  not  delighted  with  the  per- 
dition of  men,  seeing  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son  that  every  one  who  believes  in  him  may  not  pe- 
rish but  have  eternal  life."  The  Dutch  Professors 
give  the  same  account  of  the  sufficiency,  (which  they 
call  the  sufficiency  of  Christ's  "  satisfaction^)  and  of 
the  purpose  of  the  Sacred  Persons  concerning  it.  The 
sufficiency  is  defined  in  the  same  manner  by  the  dele- 
gates from  the  synod  of  Gelders,  and  by  those  from 
the  synod  of  Groningen  and  Omlands,  and  by  those 
from  the  synod  of  the  French  Netherlands,  and  by 
those  from  Friesland.  The  latter  affirm  that  the  suffi- 
ciency, as  thus  defined,  "has  hitherto  been  constantly 
and  firmly  held  and  taught  in  all  the  Dutch  churches 
without  a  dissenting  voice." 

Such  were  the  views  entertained  of  the  sufficiency 
of  the  atonement  by  the  Calvinistic  world  one  century 
after  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation,  and  if  we 
can  trust  the  uncontradicted  testimony  of  several  bo- 
dies of  delegates,  by  the  Reformed  Church  from  the 
beginning,  and  by  the  better  and  larger  part  of  the 
schoolmen  and  fathers.  According  to  all  these,  it  was 
the  eternal  purpose  of  the  Sacred  Persons,  (to  express 
2  I 


374  AGREEMENT  OF  THE  [PART  III. 

the  divine  benevolence  towards  those  who  perish,) 
that  the  death  of  Christ  should  possess  such  a  suffi- 
ciency as  to  render  it  an  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  and  give  it  such  an  influence  as  to  make 
the  pardon  of  all  and  each  possible  and  certain  if  they 
would  believe  :  that  on  this  account  he  may  be  said  to 
have  died  for  all,  and  that  this  may  be  considered  the 
meaning  of  those  texts  which  speak  of  a  universal 
atonement.  Now  this  is  enough.  Such  a  sufficiency, 
I  fully  acknowledge,  is  competent  to  support  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  offer  and  promise,  and  the  justice  of  the 
command  and  punishment;  and  I  must  be  allowed  to 
add,  it  constitutes  a  complete  and  designed  atonement 
for  all  men  as  moral  agents. 

But  this  is  a  very  different  representation  from  that 
of  the  prisoners  and  the  pearl.  The  points  of  contrast 
between  the  two  theories  are  strongly  marked. 

(1.)  The  Synod  say  that  Christ  died  and  willed 
to  die  for  all  in  respect  to  the  sufficiency  of  his 
ransom ;  but  the  pearl  was  in  no  sense  paid  for 
all,  and  nothing  in  the  transaction  would  justify  the 
use  of  such  an  expression.  When  the  Synod  af- 
firmed that  the  universal  terms  found  in  the  Bible 
might  be  applied  literally,  that  Christ  might  truly  be 
called  a  propitiation  "  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world," 
they  could  not  have  had  such  an  image  in  their  mind 
as  that  of  a  pearl  paid  expressly  for  a  part  and  ex- 
pressly not  paid  for  the  rest. 

(2.)  It  appeared  to  be  the  general  voice  of  the  Sy- 
nod, and  was  expressly  affirmed  by  several  bodies  of 
delegates,  that  this  sufficiency  of  the  death  of  Christ 
did  express,  and  was  intended  to  express,  the  divine 
benevolence  towards  all.  But  the  payment  of  the 
pearl  exclusively  for  the  hundred,  expressed  no  love 
for  the  900  who  were  excluded  ;  and  it  is  a  part  of  the 


CHAP.  V.J  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  375 

system  connected  with  this  representation,  that  the 
atonement  was  no  indication  of  benevolence  to  the 
non-elect. 

(3.)  The  sufficiency  maintained  hy  the  Synod  is 
not  that  which  would  have  been  a  provision  for  the  par- 
don of  the  non-elect  had  their  faith  been  foreseen,  but 
is  a  provision  which  they  may  now  enjoy.  It  is  a  suf- 
ficiency wholly  independent  of  foreknowledge.  It  is 
a  sufficiency  which  is  ready  for  them  even  while  they 
are  known  to  be  non  elect.  The  delegates  from  the 
Wetteraw  say,  "  The  reprobate  are  bound  to  believe 
this,  that  the  merit  of  Christ  is  of  so  great  worth  that 
it  is  able  to  profit  them  also;  and  it  would  indeed  profit 
them  if  they  would  believe."  "The  sufficiency  and 
magnitude  of  the  ransom  of  Christ,  as  relates  to  the  re- 
probate, has  a  double  end."  Matthias  Martinius  says, 
"  Nor  here  will  it  be  enough  to  assert  such  a  suffi- 
ciency of  redemption  as  could  be  enough  ;  but  it  is  al- 
together such  as  is  enough,  and  such  as  God  and 
Christ  have  considered  enough.  For  otherwise  the 
Gospel  command  and  promise  are  destroyed."  Henry 
Iselburg  says,  "  No  one  of  the  reprobate  can  be  con- 
demned and  perish  for  want  of  the  death  of  Christ,  or 
because  there  was  not  in  him  a  sufficient  remedy 
against  destruction."  The  delegates  from  the  synod 
of  Groningen  and  Omlands  say,  "  No  one  of  the  repro- 
bate perishes  for  w^ant  of  the  death  of  Christ,  or  through 
its  insufficiency."  It,  was  plainly  the  opinion  of  them 
all  that  the  sufficiency  changed  the  relations  of  the  re- 
probate themselves.  But  the  relations  of  the  900 
could  not  be  affected  by  the  value  of  the  pearl,  and 
nothing  but  an  imposition  upon  their  ignorance  could 
lead  them  to  imagine  such  a  change. 

(4.)  The  sufficiency  maintained  by  the  Synod  is 
such  that  the  ransom  of  Christ  "  wants  nothing  at  all- 


376  AGREEMENT  OF  THE  [PART.  III. 

to  the  purpose  of  meriting,  acquiring,  and  obtaining 
[a  conditional]  reconciliation  with  God  and  remission  of 
sins  for  all  men  and  every 'man."  It  is  such  that  "God 
can  require  no  other  sacrifice  or  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  men  but  that  one  alone,"  and  such  that  there  is 
,;  no  need  of  any  other  merit  for  men."  But  can  a41 
this  be  said  of  the  pearl  ?  Should  the  900  accept  the 
offer,  would  their  retainer  be  bound  by  the  ransom  to 
discharge  them  ?  What  has  bound  him  ?  The  ran- 
som was  not  paid  for  them  ;  nor  has  he  promised  to 
accept  it  in  their  behalf.  Its  value  cannot  bind  him, 
for  the  whole  was  given  for  the  hundred.  He  cer- 
tainly would  have  a  right  to  demand,  and  would  de- 
mand, another  ransom.  If  you  say  he  has  promised 
to  accept  it  for  the  900  in  case  they  will  come  out, 
then  the  ground  is  changed  and  the  dispute  is  ended. 
For  then  there  is  a  ransom  publicly  accepted  for  them 
as  capable  agents.     And  this  is  all  we  ask. 

(5.)  The  sufficiency  which  the  Synod  supported  is 
such  as  places  remission  within  the  reach  of  every 
man  who  hears  the  Gospel,  and  leaves  nothing  in  the 
way  but  a  wicked  heart.  This  cannot  be  said  of  the 
pearl.  It  had  no  influence  on  the  900  at  all,  except 
what  existed  in  their  own  imaginations.  It  did  not 
bring  deliverance  within  their  reach,  only  in  a  delu- 
sive appearance.  It  left  their  escape  still  as  much  a 
natural  impossibility  as  ever.  And  yet  the  same  re- 
spectable writer  that  makes  this  representation,  says 
to  a  non-elect  man,  "  It  is  still  true,  if  you  believe  you 
shall  be  saved.  If  you  believe  there  is  atonement  for 
you."  He  had  lately  said,  "  The  death  of  Christ 
must  expiate  our  sins  before  any  way  can  be  opened" 
for  pardon.  That  non-elect  man  had  been  told  that 
Christ  did  not  expiate  his  sins  ;  and  now  he  is  assured 
that  there  is  an  atonement  ready  for  him  if  he  will  re- 


CHAP.   V.]  SYNOD  OF  DORT.  377 

ceive  it.  This  certainly  is  what  the  words  import, 
(and  what  the  preaching  of  the  same  class  of  men 
continually  imports,)  but  this  was  not  the  meaning  of 
the  writer.  His  meaning  was,  all  who  in  fact  believe 
will  find  an  atonement.  But  he  ought  not  to  have 
said  to  a  moral  agent  whose  faith  was  naturally  possi- 
ble, and  acknowledged  to  be  such  in  the  very  form  of 
the  address,  and  for  whom  he  knew  no  expiation  had 
been  made,  (for  the  man  is  addressed  as  non-elect,) 
"  If  you  believe  there  is  atonement  for  you."  If 
I  say  to  a  man  from  the  roof  of  my  house,  leap  up 
to  me  and  I  will  give  you  a  kingdom,  I  only  trifle  with 
him ;  we  understand  each  other.  But  if  because  I 
know  a  man  is  effectually  induced  to  go  another  way, 
I  say  to  him,  if  you  will  come  into  my  house,  (an  ac- 
tion which  is  possible,)  you  will  find  a  feast  prepared 
for  you,  when  no  feast  is  provided,  I  deceive  him  and 
utter  a  falsehood.  It  would  have  been  false  if  the 
herald  had  told  the  900,  you  may  come  out  if  you 
please. 

On  the  whole,  the  sufficiency  set  forth  by  the  Synod 
was  not  like  the  value  of  a  costly  pearl  expressly  not 
paid  for  a  part  of  the  prisoners,  but  the  sufficiency  of  a 
ransom  in  such  a  sense  offered  for  all  as  purposely  and 
expressly  to  secure  pardon  to  them  in  ease  they  would 
believe. 

If  I  rightly  understand  the  Synod,  (and  I  think  I 
certainly  do  if  they  are  consistent  with  themselves,) 
they  differed  from  us  in  nothing  but  in  identifying 
the  atonement  with  the  higher  ransom.  Their  ques- 
tion was  about  the  united  influence  of  Christ's  ex- 
piation and  merit,  which  they  contemplated  under  the 
name  of  his  meritorious  death ;  and  the  shape  of  their 
question  was,  for  whom  did  he  die  ?  meaning,  whose 
salvation  did  he  intend  to  merit  and  receive  as  his 
2  I  2 


378  CALVIN,  WATTS,  [PART  III. 

reward?  And  this  carried  them  to  the  secret  purpose 
of  the  divine  mind,  and  the  private  covenant  between 
the  Sacred  Persons,  respecting  the  application  of  the 
atonement.  And  when  they  had  fastened  their  eye 
there,  they  overlooked  the  public  explanation  in  which 
we  find  the  express  purpose,  together  with  all  the  influ- 
ence which  that  explanation  had  to  render  the  death  of 
Christ  a  complete  atonement  for  a  whole  world  of  mo- 
ral agents.  And  then  they  had  no  way  to  account  for 
the  influence  of  the  atonement  upon  all,  but  to  ascribe 
it  to  its  sufficiency.  But  that  sufficiency,  as  they  ex- 
plained it,  really  constituted  all  that  we  mean  by  a 
general  atonement.  In  short,  had  the  Synod  distin- 
guished as  we  do  between  expiation  and  merit,  they 
would  have  had  no  dispute  with  us  even  in  words. 


*~^ 


CHAPTER  VI. 

TESTIMONY    OF   CALVIN,  WATTS,    AND    OTHERS. 

Doctor  Watts  says  of  Calvin,  "  that  some  of  the 
most  rigid  and  narrow  limitations  of  grace  to  men  are 
found  chiefly  in  his  Institutions,  which  were  written  in 
his  youth :  but  his  Comments  on  Scripture  were  the 
labours  of  his  riper  years  and  maturer  judgment*." 
With  this  remark  he  introduces  the  following  Com- 
ments of  that  distinguished  Reformer. 

Mat.  26.  28.  ["  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New- Tes- 
tament which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins."]  "  Under  the  name  of  many  he  denotes,  not  a 
part  of  the  world  only,  but  the  whole  human  race." 

1  Cor.  8.  11,  12.  ["  Through  thy  knowledge  shall 
the  weak  brother  perish  for  whom  Christ  died."]    "  If 

*  Watts'  Work?,  Vol.  6.  p.  287.  JNTote. 


CHAP.  VI.]  AND    OTHERS.  379 

the  soul  of  every  weak  person  vvas  the  purchase  of  the 
blood  of  Christ,  he  that  for  the  sake  of  a  little  meat 
plunges  his  brother  again  into  death  who  was  redeem- 
ed by  Christ,  shows  at  how  mean  a  rate  he  esteems 
the  blood  of  Christ." 

1  John  2.  2.  ["  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins, 
and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world."]  "  Here  a  question  is  raised,  how  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world  are  atoned  for. — Some  have  said— 
that  Christ  suffered  for  the  whole  world  sufficiently, 
but  for  the  elect  alone  efficaciously.  This  is  the  com- 
mon solution  of  the  schools  :  and  though  I  confess  this 
is  a  truth,  yet  I  do  not  think  it  agrees  to  this  place." 

2  Pet.  2.  1.  ["  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among 
you,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies, 
even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bring 
upon  themselves  swift  destruction."]  "  Though 
Christ  is  denied  in  various  ways,  yet  in  my  opinion 
Peter  means  the  same  thing  here  that  Jude  expresses , 
viz.  that  the  grace  of  God  is  turned  into  lascivious- 
ness.  For  Christ  has  redeemed  us  that  he  might  have 
a  people  free  from  the  defilements  of  the  world,  and 
devoted  to  holiness  and  innocence.  Whosoever  there- 
fore shake  off  the  yoke  and  throw  themselves  into  all 
licentiousness,  are  justly  said  to  deny  Christ  by  whom 
they  were  redeemed." 

Jude  4.  ["  Turning  the  grace  of  our  God  into  las- 
eiviousness,  and  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."]  "  He  means  that  Christ  is 
really  denied  when  those  who  were  redeemed  by  his 
blood  again  enslave  themselves  to  the  devil,  and  as 
far  as  in  them  lies,  make  that  incomparable  price  vain 
and  ineffectual*." 

This  is  decisive  as  relates  to  Calvin;  and  shows 

*  Watts'  Works,  Vol.  6.  p.  287,  283. 


380  CALVIN,  WATTS,  [PART  III. 

that  in  his  maturer  years  his  opinion  was  the  same  as 
that  of  the  schoolmen  and  fathers  before  him,  and  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Calvinistic  world  a  century  after. 

The  seraphic  Watts  wrote  a  treatise  on  purpose  to 
support  the  very  sentiments  contained  in  these  sheets. 
I  cannot  refrain  from  presenting  a  syllabus  of  his  argu- 
ment in  his  own  words. 

"I.  It  is  very  hard  to  vindicate  the  sincerity  of  the 
blessed  God  or  his  Son  in  their  universal  offers  of  grace 
and  salvation,  and  their  sending  ministers  with  such  mes- 
sages and  invitations  to  accept  of  mercy,  if  there  be 
not  such  a  conditional  pardon  and  salvation  provided 
for  them. — It  is  hard  to  suppose  that  the  great  God 
who  is  truth  itself,  and  sincere  and  faithful  in  all  his 
dealings,  should  call  upon  dying  men  to  trust  in  a  Sa- 
viour for  eternal  life,  when  this  Saviour  has  not  eter- 
nal life  intrusted  with  him  to  give  them  if  they  do  re- 
pent. It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  the  great  Govern- 
our  of  the  world  should  be  sincere  in  inviting  and  re- 
quiring sinners  who  are  on  the  brink  of  hell  to  rest 
themselves  on  an  empty  word  of  invitation,  a  mere 
shadow  and  appearance  of  support,  if  there  be  nothing 
real  to  bear  them  up  from  those  deeps  of  destruction, 
nothing  but  mere  words  and  empty  invitations.  Can 
we  think  that  the  righteous  and  holy  God  would  en- 
courage his  ministers  to  call  them  to  lean  and  rest  the 
weight  of  their  immortal  concerns  and  happiness  upon 
a  Gospel,  a  covenant  of  grace,  a  Mediator,  and  his 
merit  and  righteousness,  kc*  all  of  which  are  a  mere 
nothing  with  regard  to  them,  a  heap  of  empty  names, 
an  unsupporting  void  which  cannot  uphold  them  ? — I 
think  we  must  cancel  all  these  Scriptures,  and  deny 
all  offers  of  grace  and  salvation  made  to  sinners  in  ge- 
neral, if  Christ  procured  and  provided  nothing  for 
them. — 


CHAP.  VI.]  AND  OTHERS.  381 

II.  It  is  very  hard  to  defend  the  sincerity  of  the 
►Spirit  of  God  in  awakening  the  consciences  of  these 
persons  sometimes  who  are  not  elected,  and  stirring 
them  up  to  think  of  receiving  the  salvation  of  Christ 
upon  the  terms  of  the  Gospel,  if  there  be  no  such 
salvation  conditionally  provided  for  them  to  receive. — 

III.  It  is  equally  difficult  to  vindicate  the  equity  of 
God  as  the  Judge  of  all  men,  in  condemning  unbeliev- 
ers, and  punishing  them  eternally  for  not  accepting 
the  offers  of  pardon,  if  there  was  not  so  much  as  a 
conditional  pardon  provided  for  them  ;  and  for  not 
resting  upon  the  merit  of  Christ  and  receiving  his 
salvation,  when  there  was  no  such  merit  appointed  for 
them  to  rest  upon,  nor  any  such  salvation  for  them  to 
receive. — Can  we  think  that  the  righteous  Judge  of 
the  world  will  merely  send  words  of  grace  and  salva- 
tion amongst  them,  on  purpose  to  make  his  creatures 
so  much  the  more  miserable,  when  there  is  no  real 
grace  or  salvation  contained  in  those  words  ? — 

IV.  It  is  very  hard  to  suppose  that  when  the  word 
of  God,  by  the  general  commands,  promises,  threaten- 
ings,  given  to  all  men  whatsoever,  and  often  repeated 
therein,  represents  mankind  as  in  a  state  of  probation, 
and  in  the  way  towards  eternal  rewards  or  eternal 
punishments,  according  to  their  behaviour  in  this  life  ; 
I  say,  it  is  hard  to  suppose  that  all  this  should  be 
no  real  and  just  representation,  but  a  mere  amuse- 
ment.— 

V.  This  seems  to  be  a  fair  and  easy  way  to  answer 
several  of  those  texts  of  Scripture  which  represent 
God  as  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  &c. — Nor  can  I  see 
any  reason  why  the  strictest  Calvinist  should  be  an- 
gry that  the  all-sufficient  merit  of  Christ  should  over- 
flow so  far  in  its  influence  as  to  provide  conditional 
salvation  for  all  mankind,  since  the  elect  of  God  have 


382  CALVIN,  WATTS,  j>ART  III. 

that  certain  and  absolute  salvation  which  they  contend 
for  secured  to  them  by  the  same  merit. — 

VI.  That  all  mankind  have  some  conditional  salva- 
tion provided  for  them,  and  some  real  grace  and  par- 
don offered  them  by  a  new  covenant,  appears  from  this, 
that  all  men,  both  wicked  and  righteous,  or  just  and 
unjust,  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead,  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  things  done  in  the  body,  whether  good  or 
evil,  and  to  receive  rewards  or  punishments  in  their 
body  as  well  as  in  their  souls,  according  to  their  im- 
provement or  misimprovement  of  the  dispensations  un- 
der which  they  have  lived. — Now  surely  this  resurrec- 
tion of  all  mankind  must  be  built  upon  the  foot  of  a 
new  covenant  given  or  offered  to  all  mankind,  since 
the  old  covenant  of  innocency,  or  the  law  of  works, 
appoints  eternal  life  without  dying  for  the  obedient, 
and  death  without  a  resurrection  for  the  disobedient. — 
There  was  therefore  doubtless  a  general  proclamation 
of  pardon  and  salvation  to  all  mankind — contained  in 
the  first  promise,  or  the  Gospel  that  was  preached  to 
Adam,  the  first  father  of  mankind  : — and  this  was  again 
preached  to  all  the  world  by  Noah,  the  second  father 
of  mankind : — otherwise,  I  think,  the  resurrection 
would  not  reach  to  every  man  and  woman  in  the  world. 
Let  it  be  considered  also,  that  this  very  resurrection 
of  the  bodies  of  sinful  mankind,  brings  with  it  an  ad- 
ditional penalty  and  misery  beyond  what  the  law  of  in- 
nocency threatened. — Now  this  cannot,  with  such  evi- 
dent, justice,  be  indicted  upon  the  non-elect  if  they  are 
under  no  other  covenant  but  that  of  innocency. — For 
since  the  broken  law  or  covenant  of  works  leaves  the 
body  under  the  power  of  death  for  ever,  we  can  hard- 
ly suppose  that  the  Son  of  God,  the  chief  Minister  of 
his  Father's  grace,  would  provide  a  resurrection  of  the 
body  for  the  breakers  of  that  original  law,  merely  to 


CHAP.  VI.]  AND  OTHERS,  333 

put  them  to  severer  punishments  and  more  intense  tor- 
ments than  that  broken  law  threatened,  if  theie  were 
not  some  advantage  in  the  nature  of  things  derived  to 
them  from  his  mediation  to  balance  it. — He  will  never 
give  them  reason  to  complain  that  with  regard  to  them 
he  came  not  to  be  a  Mediator  or  Saviour,  but  merely 
to  add  to  their  misery  by  a  resurrection  to  eternal 
pain,  without  any  equivalent  of  hope  ;  or  that  he  came 
to  expose  them  to  double  damnation  for  refusing  his 
grace,  when  he  had  none  for  them  to  accept. — '  God 
sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world, 
but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved.5 — 

The  doctrine  of  reprobation,  in  the  most  severe  and 
absolute  sense  of  it,  stands  in  such  a  direct  contradic- 
tion to  all  our  notions  of  kindness  and  love  to  others? 
in  which  the  blessed  God  is  set  forth  as  our  example, 
that  our  reason  cannot  tell  how  to  receive  it. — When 
therefore  I  hear  men  talk  of  the  doctrine  of  reprobation 
with  a  special  gust  and  relish,  as  a  favourite  article, 
I  cannot  but  suspect  their  good  temper,  and  question 
whether  they  love  their  neighbour  as  they  do  them- 
selves.— 

I  would  ask  leave  also  in  this  place  to  inquire,  what 
great  advantages  can  be  derived  to  religion  or  Chris- 
tianity by  endeavouring  to  limit  the  extent  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  to  take  away  all  manner  of  hopes,  and 
prayers,  and  endeavours  from  the  non-elect  ?  Does 
the  doctrine  of  election  of  persons  obtain  any  further 
confirmation  by  it  ?  No,  by  no  means.  Their  sal- 
vation is  secured  whatsoever  becomes  of  the  rest  of 
mankind,  whether  they  have  any  hopes  or  no. — Are 
the  eler  t  any  way  discouraged  by  [such  a  general  pro- 
vision ?]  Not  in  the  least.  But  many  persons  who 
are  awakened  to  a  sense  of  sin,  and  are  seeking  after 
Christ  for  salvation,  by  this  narrow  doctrine  may  be 


384  CALVIN,  WATTS,  [PART  III, 

terribly  discouraged  from  receiving  his  offers  of  grace, 
when  they  are  taught  to  doubt  whether  there  be  any 
grace  provided  for  them,  or  whether  Jesus  be  appoint- 
ed to  act  as  their  Saviour.  It  may  be  the  means  to 
drive  some  persons  to  despair,  when  they  hear  that 
unless  they  are  elected  they  may  seek  after  salvation 
by  Christ  in  vain. — And  it  may  tempt  them  to  begin  at 
the  wrong  end,  and  seek  to  pry  into  the  counsels  of 
God,  and  inquire  after  what  they  can  never  know,  that 
is,  their  election  of  God,  before  they  dare  trust  in 
grace  or  submit  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ. — 

Objection  I.  But  may  it  not  be  said  here,  if  there 
be  only  an  outward  sufficiency  of  salvation  provided 
for  the  non-elect,  by  a  conditional  pardon  procured 
through  the  death  of  Christ, — but  no  inward  sufficien- 
cy of  grace  provided, — the  event  will  be  infallibly 
and  necessarily  the  same, — since  they  of  themselves— 
cannot  believe,  for  by  the  fall  all  men — became — 
dead  in  sin  ? 

Answer. — The  final  event  will  be  the  same  as  if  they 
were  under  a  natural  impossibility,  or  utter  natural 
impotence. — Yet  we  must  say  still  that  sinners  are  not 
under  such  a  real  natural  impossibility  of  repenting  and 
believing  as  though  they  were  naturally  blind  or 
dead. — It  is  plain  that  these  natural  faculties,  powers, 
or  capacities  are  not  lost  by  the  fall ;  for  if  they  were, 
there  would  be  no  manner  of  need  or  use  of  any  mo- 
ral means  or  motives,  such  as  commands,  threatenings, 
promises,  exhortations.  These  would  all  be  imper- 
tinent and  absurd,  for  they  could  have  no  more  influ- 
ence on  sinners  than  if  we  command  or  exhort  a  blind 
person  to  see,  or  a  dead  body  to  rise  or  move — All  the 
other  impotence  and  inability  therefore  in  sinners  to 
repent  or  believe,  properly  speaking,  is  but  moral. — 
1  grant  this  inability — has  been  sometimes  called  by 


CHAP.  VI.]  AND  OTHERS.  385 

our  divines  a  natural  impotence,  because  it  arises  from 
the  original  corruption  of  our  nature. — But  this  spring 
of  it  is  much  better  signified — by  the  name  of  native 
impotence,  to  show  that  it  comes  from  our  birth  ;  and 
the  quality  of  this  impotence  is  best  called  moral,  being 
seated  chiefly  in  the  will  and  affections,  and  not  in  any 
want  of  natural  powers  or  faculties  to  perform  what 
God  requires. — Even  in  things  of  common  life  the  can- 
not sometimes  signifies  nothing  but  the  will  not*  Luke 
11.7.  '  Trouble  me  not,  my  door  is  shut,  my  children 
are  with  me  in  bed,  I  cannot  rise  to  give  thee ;'  that  is, 
I  will  not. — They  have  natural  powers  or  faculties  in 
them,  which  if  well  tried  might  overcome  their  native 
propensity  to  vice,  though  they  never  will  do  it*. — Let 
this  then  be  constantly  maintained :  there  is  a  natural 
inward  sufficiency  of  powers  and  faculties  given  to 
every  sinner  to  hearken  to  the  calls — of — the  Gospel, 
though  they  lie  under  a  moral  impotence  ;  and  there  is 
an  outward  sufficiency  of  provision  of  pardon  in  the 
death  of  Qhrist  for  every  one  who  repents  and  accepts 
the  Gospel. — And  thus  much  is  sufficient  to  maintain 
the  sincerity  of  God  in  his  universal  offers  of  grace 
through  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  present  commands  to  all 
men  to  repent  and  trust  in  his  mercy,  as  well  as  to  vin- 
dicate his  equity  in  the  last  great  day  when  the  impeni- 
tent and  unbelievers  shall  be  condemned.  Their  death 
lies  at  their  own  doors. — I  think  this  distinction  of  na- 
tural and  moral  power  and  impotence  will  reconcile  all 

*  To  show  that  this  distinction  of  natural  and  moral  inability  is  not 
new,  I  will  present  the  following  quotation  from  Burkitt  under  Mat, 
13.  52.  and  Mar.  6.  5.  ["He  could  there  do  no  mighty  work."] 
"Christ  was  unable  because  they  were  unwilling:  his  impotency  was 
occasioned  by  their  infidelity:  he  did  not  because  he  would  not." 
"Christ  had  a  natural  ability  to  do  mighty  works  there,  but  no  moral 
ability. — He  could  not  because  he  would  not.'7 

2K 


386  ©ALVIN,  WATTS,  [PART  Hi. 

the  various  expressions  of  Scripture  on  this  subject, 
both  to  one  another  as  well  as  to  the  reason  of  things, 
which  can  hardly  be  reconciled  any  other  way. 

Objection  II. — Since  the  great  God — foreknows 
they  will  never  accept  the  salvation  of  Christ, — does 
not  this  future  certainty  of  the  event  lay  an  effectual 
bar  against  their  believing  ? — We  inquire  also  further, 
can  his  offers  of  grace  be  sincere  to  persons  whom  he 
foresees  will  certainly  reject  it  ? — 

Answer  I. — The  mere  foreknowledge  of  any  event, 
without  any  real  influence  from  the  power  that  knows, 
does  not  make  the  event  necessary. — 

Answer  II. — The  Gospel  is  never  sent — to  any  peo- 
ple— when  God  foresees  there  are  none  at  all  that  will 
accept  of  it.  Now  in  the  way  of  Godrs  government  of 
this  world,  he  deals  with  mankind  as  a  number  of  free 
and  moral  agents. — God's  secret  foreknowledge  of 
those  who  will  not  accept  it,  is  by  no  means  a  suffi- 
cient reason  to  prevent — the  general  offers  of  his  grace 
to  them,  because  the  design  of  his  government  is  to 
treat  mankind  as  reasonable  and  moral  agents. 

Answer  III. — There  may  be  valuable  and  unknown 
€nds — attained  by  his  sincere  forbidding  sin  to  crea- 
tures whom  he  knows  resolved  to  practise  it. — The 
wisdom,  holiness,  and  dignity  of  his  government 
must  be  maintained  in  all  the  just  appearances  of  it, 
though  sinners  will  rebel  against  it ;  for  the  honour  of 
divine  government,  in  the  authority,  wisdom,  and  holi- 
ness of  it,  is  of  much  more  importance  than  the  wel- 
fare of  ten  thousand  of  his  creatures. — 

Answer  IV.  Whether  or  no  wTe  can  guess  at  any  of 
the  reasons  of  God's  government  or  conduct  in  this 
thing,  yet  the  matter  of  fact  is  certain  and  beyond  all 
dispute*." 

*  Watts'  Works,  Vol.  6.  p.  283—296. 


CHAP.  VI.]  AND  OTHERS.  3B7 

To  this  powerful  testimony  of  the  ethereal  Watts,  I 
might  add  the  judgment  of  most  of  our  standard  Eng- 
lish Annotators.  The  following  specimens  are  selected. 

PooPs  Continualors.  Heb.  2.  9.  ["  That  he  by  the 
grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for  every  man."]  "  To 
render  sin  remissible  to  all  persons,  and  them  salvable, 
God  punishing  man's  sin  in  him,  and  laying  on  him  the 
iniquities  of  us  all;  (Isai.  53.  4 — 6.  1  John  2.  2.)  and 
so  God  became  propitious  and  plausible  to  all :  and  if 
all  are  not  saved  by  it,  it  is  because  they  do  not  repent 
and  believe  in  him.  (2  Cor.  5.  19 — 21)." 

Burkitt,  1  John  2.  2.  [u  He  is  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world."]  "  Christ  our  Advocate 
became  a  propitiation  for  us,  and  for  the  whole  race 
of  mankind,  for  all  that  lived  before  us  or  shall  live 
after  us. — There  is  a  virtual  sufficiency  in  the  death  of 
Christ  for  all  persons,  and  an  actual  efficacy  as  to  all 
believers. — Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  suffering  death 
upon  the  cross  for  our  redemption,  did  by  that  one  ob- 
lation of  himself  once  offered,  make  a  full,  perfect,  and 
sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world." 

Henry,  1  Tim.  2.  1 — 8.  ["  I  exhort  therefore  that 
first  of  all  supplications — be  made  for  all  men  : — for 
this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our 
Saviour,  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For  there  is  one  God,  and 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus  ;  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all."]  "  One 
reason  why  all  men  are  to  be  prayed  for  is,  because 
there  is  one  God,  and  that  God  bears  a  good  will  to  all 
mankind. — This  one  God  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved  ;  that  is,  he  desires  not  the  death  and  destruc- 
lion  of  any,  (Ezek.  33.  1 1 .)  but  the  welfare  and  salva= 


388  CALVIN,  WATTS,  [PART  III. 

tion  of  all ; — and  none  perish  but  it  is  their  own  fault. 
(Mat.  23.  37.) — There  is  one  Mediator,  and  that  Me- 
diator gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all.  As  the  mercy 
of  God  extends  itself  to  all  his  works,  so  the  mediation 
of  Christ  extends  itself  thus  far  to  all  the  children  of 
men,  that  he  paid  a  price  sufficient  for  all  mankind. 
He  brought  mankind  to  stand  upon  new  terms  with 
God,  so  as  that  they  are  not  now  under  the  law  as  a 
covenant  of  works, — but  under  grace. — He  gave  him- 
self— a  ransom  for  all,  so  that  all  mankind  are  put  in  a 
better  condition  than  that  of  devils.  He  died  to  work 
out  a  common  salvation.— God  hath  a  good  will  to  the 
salvation  of  all ;  so  that  it  is  not  so  much  the  want  of 
a  will  in  God  to  save  them,  as  it  is  a  want  of  will  in 
themselves  to  be  saved  in  God's  way.  Here  our  bless- 
ed Saviour  charges  the  fault :  '  Ye  will  not  come  unto 
me  that  ye  might  have  life.'  (John  5.  40.")  Under 
2  Pet.  2.  1 .  the  same  commentator  says, "  He — paid  a 
price  sufficient  to  redeem  as  many  worlds  of  sinners  as- 
there  are  sinners  in  the  world." 

Doddridge,  The  same  passage.  "  Who  indeed  wills 
that  all  men  should  be  saved  and  come  to  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  truth. — I  must  confess  I  have  never 
been  satisfied  with  that  interpretation  which  explains 
all  men  here  merely  as  signifying  some  of  all  sorts  and 
ranks  of  men  ;  since  I  fear  it  might  also  be  said,  on  the 
principles  of  those  who  are  fondest  of  this  gloss,  that 
he  also  wills  all  men  to  be  condemned. — The  meaning 
therefore  seems  to  be,  that  God  has  made  sufficient 
provision  for  the  salvation  of  all,  and  that  it  is  to  be 
considered  as  the  general  declaration  of  his  will,  that  all 
who  know  the  truth  themselves  should  publish  it  to  all 
around  them. — And  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men, 
even  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  hath  not  undertaken 
to  plead  for  this  or  that  nation  or  party  of  men  alone. 


CflAP.   VI.J  AMD  OTHERS.  389 

but  whose  kind  office  in  the  court  of  heaven,  where 
he  now  dwells,  extends  in  some  degree  to  the  whole 
human  race,  and  who  refuses  not  the  blessings  he  has 
procured  to  any  that  with  sincerity  and  humility  cast 
themselves  upon  him.55 

Scott.  The  same  passage.  "  It  seems  improper  to 
say — that  '  all  men5  signifies  *  some  of  all  sorts.5 — This 
provision  and  appointment  has  been  made  and  reveal- 
ed for  the  common  benefit  of  the  human  race, — that  all 
who  will  may  come  in  this  way  to  the  mercy-seat  of 
a  pardoning  God. — This  Mediator  therefore  gave  him- 
self '  a  ransom  for  all,'  as  '  the  Lamb  of  God  who 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world  ;5  that  by  theall-suf- 
ilcient  atonement  of  his  death  upon  the  cross,  and  the 
redemption  there  made,  a  foundation  might  be  laid  for 
the  hopes  of  sinners  all  over  the  earth,  and  that  all 
who  believe  might  actually  be  saved  by  it.— There  are 
but  few  of  those  thai  limit  such  expressions  to  '  some 
of  all  sorts,5  who  do  not  allow  the  all-sufficiency  of 
Christ5s  atonement,  and  admit  that  all  men  should  be 
called  on  to  believe  in  him,  and  that  all  who  do  be- 
lieve will  be  saved  by  him.55  Under  John  1.  29.  the 
same  commentator  says,  "On  this  ground  any  man 
may  come  to  the  throne  of  grace  for  all  the  blessings 
of  salvation  ;  nor  does  he  want  any  other  plea  than 
that  '  Christ  has  died,  yea  rather  is  risen  again,  and 
ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us.' — This  general 
proposal  and  declaration  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a 
common  benefit  to  all  throughout  the  whole  world  who 
desire  to  avail  themselves  of  it,  is  entirely  consistent 
with  a  particular  purpose  of  God  in  making  '  his  peo- 
ple willing  in  the  day  of  his  power.'' 55 

The  sentiment  contained  in  these  quotations,  it  may 
be  proper  to  add,  has  !1  along  been  held  by  the  great 
body  of  the  English  divines,  not  only  in  tiie  establish- 

2K2 


390  EXPRESSLY  [PART  III. 

ment,  (of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt,)  but  among  the 
Dissenters,  the  Baxters,  the  Wattses,  the  Doddridges, 
and  the  like.  And  it  is  certainly  at  the  present  day 
the  common  belief  in  those  two  countries  where  the 
true  Church  is  chiefly  found,  I  mean  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States.  At  a  moment  when  the  millennium 
is  near,  and  great  light  is  rising  on  the  world,  this  is 
found  to  be  the  general  faith  of  the  purest  branches  of 
the  Church.  And  if  we  go  abroad  to  Catholic  regions, 
and  even  search  among  all  the  denominations  which 
bear  the  Christian  name,  this  will  be  found  to  be  the 
belief  almost  universally  associated  with  the  religion  of 
the  JNew-Testament. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ATONEMENT    OFFERED    AND    ACCEPTED    EXPRESSLY    FOR 
ALL. 

The  fourth  proposition  in  the  plan  of  the  argument 
was,  that  the  atonement  was  expressly  offered  and  ac- 
cepted for  all  as  moral  agents. 

That  the  atonement  was  made  for  all  as  moral 
agents,  we  have  the  plain  evidence  of  our  senses.  We 
see  it  applied  to  all  as  moral  agents,  first  in  the  offers 
and  promises,  and  then  in  the  command  and  threaten- 
ings,  and  in  the  punishment  of  unbelief.  It  is  no  longer 
a  question  whether  the  privilege  was  provided  for  all, 
when  we  see  it  actually  in  their  hands. 

The  three  propositions  which  have  already  been 
proved,  viz.  that  the  death  of  Christ  rendered  the  par- 
don of  all  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  in  case 
they  should  hear  the  Gospel  and  believe  ;  that  in  vir- 


CHAP.  VII.]  FOR  ALL.  391 

tue  of  this  general  change  in  the  relations  of  men,  par- 
don  is  actually  made  over  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel. 
as  far  as  it  can  be  made  over  to  moral  agents  before 
they  have  performed  their  part ;  and  that  the  benefit 
is  so  brought  within  their  reach  that  they  can  enjoy  it 
fey  only  doing  their  duty,  and  are  bound  to  apply  it  to 
themselves  ;  do  together  make  out  the  truth  complete, 
that  an  atonement  is  provided  for  all  as  moral  agents. 
The  single  proposition  that  the  death  of  Christ  render- 
ed the  pardon  of  all  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the 
law  if  they  would  believe,  comprehends  the  whole.  It 
expresses  the  entire  influence  of  the  atonement,  (ex- 
cept what  relates  to  the  curse  of  abandonment.)  and  all 
that  any  Calvinist  on  our  side  ever  asserted.  How  the 
atonement  came  to  have  such  an  influence  upon  all,  is 
now  the  only  question  that  remains.  Some  ascribe  this 
to  its  sufficiency,  others  to  the  express  purpose  for 
which  it  was  offered.  Of  the  former  there  are  two 
classes.  One  allow  to  that  sufficiency  all  that  we 
mean  by  a  general  atonement :  the  other  represent  it 
by  the  value  of  a  pearl  expressly  not  offered  for  a 
part ;  and  to  give  it  a  greater  bearing  on  non-elect 
men  than  devils,  they  resort  to  the  common  world,  the 
common  nature,  and  common  law.  We  take  the  other 
ground,  and  affirm  that  nothing  could  have  given  the 
atonement  such  an  influence  but  an  express  purpose 
bearing  upon  all  men  as  moral  agents. 

I  may  subject  myself  to  voluntary  sufferings  io  the 
age  of  Methuselah,  without  an  express  object,  and  it 
will  never  convince  the  community  that  the  law  of  the 
land  will  be  executed  upon  thieves.  But  let  my  friend 
steal  and  be  bound  to  the  stake  :  let  me  at  that  moment 
cover  his  body  with  my  own,  and  take  the  stripes 
avowedly  in  his  stead  :  and  all  the  spectators  are  as 
much  convinced  that  the  law  will  continue  to  be  exe= 


192  expressly  [part  in. 

cuted  against  theft,  as  though  the  offender  himself  had 
suffered.  The  pith  of  the  applicability  lies  in  the  ex- 
press purpose.  Look  again  at  the  case  of  the  prince 
of  Wales.  The  object  of  his  death  was  to  convince 
the  public  that  future  forgers  would  die.  Had  he  suf- 
fered by  his  own  or  another's  hand  without  giving  out 
that  he  died  in  the  room  of  any,  it  would  have  done  no- 
thing at  all  towards  producing  this  conviction  ;  and  the 
pardon  of  the  criminals,  however  reclaimed,  would 
have  ruined  the  law  as  much  as  though  the  prince  had 
not  suffered* 

That  express  purpose  which  was  necessary  to  give 
the  atonement  such  a  general  bearing,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  find.  "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wil- 
derness, even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish  but  have 
eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  zchosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God 
sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world, 
but  that  the  toorld  through  him  might  be  saved*."  Here 
is  express  purpose  enough  to  answer  every  purpose. 
There  is  no  longer  any  need  to  resort  to  the  unintelli- 
gible notion  of  sufficiency  ;  here  is  the  express  pur- 
pose itself  reaching  to  a  whole  world  of  moral  agentst. 

*  John  3.  14—17. 

t  It  is  curious  to  see  to  what  straits,  from  not  attending  to  this  ex- 
press purpose  and  its  proper  influence,  men  are  reduced  in  accounting 
for  the  universal  offci.  Dr.  Gray  of  Baltimore,  with  ail  his  talents  and 
learning,  has  not  escaped  without  difriculty  in  bis  Fiend  oj  the  Refor- 
mation. He  was  too  enlightened  not  see  that  the  o'Ter  and  promise, 
and  command,  are  extended  to  all,  and  that  t>^  deny  the  i  nj  (ability 
of  Christ's  righteousness  to  ;,;  ildleadtobh  sphemous  conj  ,jcncrs. 
He  therefore  resorts  to  the  )  it  the  imputal  ility  does  not  impend 

on  his  representative  chi  r<r!.  he  might  u^  the  Saviour  of 

those  whom  he  didi  r.  r     s  -  I  Why  then  not  of  devils  ?  And 

how  after  all  does  Dr.  G.  j     .        »  and  command?   \A  hy  thus: 


CHAP.  VII.]  FOR  ALL.  393 

Sufficiency  avail  without  an  express  purpose  !  Was 
it  ever  known  or  heard  of  that  Christ  rendered  it  con- 
sistent with  the  honour  of  the  law  for  any  to  be  par- 
doned even  by  faith  without  dying  as  their  proper  and 
avowed  Substitute  ?  Did  you  ever  read  of  any  influence 
which  he  exerted  upon  the  actual  or  possible  pardon 
of  men  but  by  dying  in  their  stead,  "  the  just  for  the 
unjust"  ?  How  in  any  other  way  could  he  have  such 
an  influence  ?  If  a  real  and  acknowledged  Substitute 
W;as  necessary  to  actual  pardon,  it  was  equally  neces- 
sary to  the  grant  of  conditional  pardon,  if  the  grant 
was  made  in  good  faith  :  and  if  without  expressly  dying 
for  men  he   could  obtain  the  one,  he  could  the  other, 

God  requires  of  all  the  righteousness  of  the  law  :  Christ's  righteousness 
is  the  righteousness  of  the  law  :  therefore  God  must  require  all  to  pre- 
sent the  righteousness  of  Christ :  thus  establishing  a  legal  identity  be- 
tween the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  the  personal  righteousness  de- 
manded of  us,  though  he  had  allowed  that  we  are  not  one  with  Christ 
or  with  Adam  except  in  a  figurative  sense.  Besides,  why  was  not  this 
reasoning  extended  to  devils  ?  God  requires  of  them  the  righteousness 
of  the  law,  (or  their  present  sin  is  not  transgression  :)  Christ's  righteous- 
ness is  the  righteousness  of  the  law  :  therefore  he  must  require  devils  to 
present  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

After  all  Dr.  G.  is  not  so  much  out  of  the  way  as  it  might  seem. 
His  mistake  arises  solely  from  misapplying  the  term  representation. 
He  supposes  Christ  to  have  represented  men  in  the  secret  covenant 
rather  than  in  the  open  transactions.  And  yet  he  has  correct  ideas  of 
what  took  place  in  that  secret  covenant,  making  it  to  be  nothing  but 
the  yielding  of  consent  on  the  one  part,  and  the  gift  of  the  elect  as  a 
reward  on  the  other.  So  that  he  really  means  no  more  than  that  the 
imputability  of  Christ's  righteousness  does  not  depend  on  men's  hav- 
ing been  given  him  as  a  reward  :  and  he  pronounces  the  opposite  sen- 
timent, (viz.  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputable  only  to  the 
elect,)  one  of  the  two  great  sophisms  which  have  corrupted  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformation.  He  goes  further,  and  introduces  the  Son  of 
God  as  saying  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  that  by  an  express  agree- 
ment with  the  Father,  he  through  his  death  has  obtained  a  right  to  as- 
sure them  that  they  shall  be  saved  by  his  mediation  if  they  will  believe. 
In  that  agreement  with  the  Father,  then,  he  represented,  or  transacted 
for,  a  whole  world  of  moral  agents. 

Dr.  G.  is  dealing  with  Mr.  M'Chord  because  the  latter  makes  repre» 


394  EXPRESSLY  [PART  III. 

and  the  whole  world  might  have  been  discharged  with- 
out an  express  atonement. 

The  pardon  of  the  non-elect  possible  without  an  ex- 
press Substitute!  Then  they  are  treated  with  more  in- 
dulgence than  the  chosen  themselves.  Is  it  to  be  be- 
lieved that  when  God  would  not  release  his  own  elect 
without  exacting  life  for  life,  he  has  offered  to  forgive 
others  without  a  satisfaction  ? 

Either  then  Christ  expressly  atoned  for  all,  or  a  part 
could  not  be  pardoned  even  should  they  believe,  and 
ought  not  to  be  blamed  for  losing  the  benefit.  There 
is  no  avoiding  this  dilemma  unless  some  way  can  be 
discovered  in  which  he  could  reconcile  with  the  ho- 
nour of  the  law  the  pardon  of  a  part,  on  the  supposi- 

sentation  to  be  necessary  to  the  imputability  of  righteousness.  But 
the  difference  between  them  is  chiefly  about  words.  They  mean  dif- 
ferent things  by  representation.  Mr.  M'C's  theory  is,  that  Christ  re- 
presented only  the  Church  or  body  of  believers,  (had  Dr.  G.  attached 
the  same  idea  to  representation  he  would  have  said  the  same,)  leaving 
to  all  a  chance  to  come  in  and  share  in  the  representation.  In  this 
he  really  makes  out  a  representation  of  all  as  moral  agents,  the  very 
thing  that  Dr.  G.  virtually  admits  :  and  he  plainly  concedes  all  that 
Dr.  G.  appears  to  mean  by  the  representation  of  the  elect.  So  that 
the  dispute  is  chiefly  about  words,  and  turns  on  the  question  what 
transactions  and  influence  ought  to  fo.ll  under  the  name  of  representa- 
tion. In  one  respect  Dr.  G.  has  the  advantage.  Mr.  Ivj'C.  in  allow- 
ing none  to  be  represented  till  they  believe,  overlooks  their  previous 
representation  as  moral  agents  which  his  own  theory  implies.  Dr.  G. 
turns  upon  him  and  sa}^,  if  Christ  is  the  Head,  (he  makes  Head  and 
Representative  the  same,)  of  none  but  believers,  he  has  no  right  to 
command  unbelievers.  Let  him  be  the  Head  and  Representative  of 
•ill  as  moral  agents,  and  every  difficulty  vanishes. 

Thus  these  two  able  writers  are  struggling  together  on  the  borders 
of  truth  ;  and  nothing  is  necessary  to  bring  them  together,  and  to  unite 
them  both  in  perfect  accord  with  us,  but  to  fix  their  eye  on  moral 
agents,  and  on  this  public  express  purpose  concerning  all  men  as  such/ 
It  is  pleasant  to  see  with  what  Christian  urbanity  these  distinguished 
men  treat  each  other.  Mr.  IVl'C.  has  the  generosity  to  concede  to  Dr. 
G.  the  reputation  of  possessing  the  highest  literary  attainments  in  our 
country. 


CHAP.  VII. j  FOR  ALL.  39a 

tion  of  their  faith,  without  expressly  atoning  for  them. 
Can  that  way  be  found  ?  This  brings  us  at  once  to 
the  alleged  sufficiency.     Could   then   the  /    and 

purity  of  the  Victim  accomplish  this?     Let  us  n>st 
suppose   that   these   attributes   had   nothing   to   point 
their  influence   to  non-elect  men   more   than   devils. 
How  then  could  they  affect  the  former  more  than  the 
latter?     None  can  doubt  that  the   Son  of  God  was 
competent  to    atone    for  devils,    had    circumstances 
given  his  death  a  bearing  upon  them.     But  the  suf- 
ficiency of  the  Victim  did  not  extend  to  them  a  suffi- 
ciency of  actual   atonement,  rendering  their  pardon 
consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  their  return  to  holiness.     It  is  plain  therefore 
that  the  sufficiency  of  the  Victim  could  not  have  this 
effect  on  non-elect  men,  without  something  to  bring  it 
to  bear  on  them  as  it  did  not  on  devils,  and  making 
out  for  them  a  competency  of  actual  atonement.     If 
there  is  no  other  sufficiency  for  them  than  that  of  the 
Victim,  they  still  stand  exactly  on  the  footing  of  de- 
vils ;  and  then  they  could  not  be  pardoned  even  should 
they  believe.     Why  then  the  offer  and  command  to 
them,  and  the  condemnation  for  losing  the  benefit  ? 
What  have  they  to  do  with  a  sufficiency  which  has 
nothing  to  do  with  them  ? 

Take  now  the  other  supposition,  that  the  dignity  and 
purity  of  the  Victim  were  brought  to  bear  on  non-elect 
men  as  they  were  not  on  devils.  How  was  this  done  ? 
By  his  taking,  it  is  said,  the  nature  of  man,  and  sub- 
jecting himself  to  the  law  given  to  the  human  race, 
and  dying  in  a  world  which  they  inhabited.  And 
what  did  all  this  accomplish?  A  sufficiency  of  actual 
atonement  for  the  non-elect  ?  No ;  for  it  is  asked, 
"  Why  need  we  contend  for  an  actual  atonement  for 
those  who  never  will  believe  ?"     A  sufficiency  then  of 


396  EXPRESSLY  [PART  III. 

what  ?  "  Of  Christ's  merit  :"  and  "  this  sufficiency," 
it  is  added,  "depends  upon  the  dignity  of  his  Person 
and  the  greatness  of  his  sufferings."  Then  it  might 
be  sufficient  for  devils  No  ;  it  is  not  "  true  that  the 
merit  of  Christ  can  be  asserted  to  be  sufficient  for  de- 
vils," for  want,  it  seems,  of  the  three  circumstances 
meeting  in  their  case.  Then  the  "  sufficiency"  of  his 
"  merit"  for  non-elect  men  "  depends"  not  merely 
"  upon  the  dignity  of  his  Person  and  the  greatness  of 
his  sufferings."  But  what  does  this  sufficiency  of 
merit  do  for  the  non-elect  ?  It  renders  their  salvation 
possible.  For  in  making  out  that  a  limited  atonement 
does  not  place  them  "  in  the  same  condition  with  de- 
vils," it  is  stated  to  be  one  of  the  points  of  difference 
against  the  latter,  that  "  their  salvation  is  in  the  na- 
ture of  things  impossible."  Here  then  is  a  sufficiency 
of  merit  which  renders  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect 
possible  without  any  "  actual  atonement"  for  them. 
Salvation  possible  without  an  actual  atonement !  The 
elect  themselves  were  never  thus  indulged.  But  how 
does  the  sufficiency  of  Christ's  merit  render  the  salva- 
tion of  the  non-elect  possible  without  an  "  actual 
atonement"?  Why,  just  as  a  ransom  paid  for  100 
prisoners  renders  possible  the  release  of  900  for  whom 
it  was  not  paid.  This  is  the  very  simile  chosen  to  il- 
lustrate the  principle ;  and  it  plainly  shows  that  the 
sufficiency  pleaded  for  by  this  respectable  writer  did 
not  render  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect  possible,  but 
left  them  after  all  "  in  the  same  condition  with  devils," 
with  this  difference  against  them,  that  they  are  tanta- 
lized with  offers  and  promises,  and  oppressed  by  com- 
mands and  threatenings,  which  they  ought  never  to 
have  received. 

Our  brethre.'j,  while   they  deny  an  "  actual   atone- 
ment" for  the  non-elect,  acknowledge  that  the  death  of 


CHAP.  VII. J  FOR  ALL.  39? 

Christ  rendered  their  pardon  consistent  with  the  ho- 
nour of  the  law  if  they  would  believe.  And  pray  what 
other  "actual  atonement"  was  made  for  Peter?  But 
how  do  they  get  this  influence  out  of  the  death  of 
Christ  ?  They  ascribe  it  to  "  the  dignity  of  his  Person 
and  the  greatness  of  his  sufferings,"  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  non-elect  as  they  do  not  upon  devils,  by  the 
common  law,  the  common  world,  and  common  nature, 
while  they  are  expressly  excluded.  Let  us  see  whe- 
ther these  three  circumstances,  without  an  express 
purpose,  and  directly  against  the  express  purpose, 
could  produce  so  mighty  an  effect. 

Could  the  common  law  work  this  wonder  ?  But  what 
is  njeant  by  this  emphasis  laid  on  a   common  law  ?    Is 
it  meant  that  all  the  transgressions  of  that  law  were  aton- 
ed for  in  a  mass  ?     Then  the  guilt  of  the  non-elect  was 
expressly  expiated.     Is  it  meant  that  such  a  satisfac- 
tion was  made  as  to  prevent  the  law  from  being  injur- 
ed whoever  of  the  human  race  should  be  pardoned  on 
their  believing  ?     This  is  exactly  what  we  assert,  and 
then  it  was    expressly  made   for  all   men  as   moral 
agents.     Is  it  meant  that  it  was  offered  for  those  trans- 
gressions of  the  law  only  which  the  elect  would  com- 
mit?    The    question  then  returns,  did  an   atonement 
expressly  offered  for  a  part  of  the  transgressions  of  a 
law,  and  expressly  not  offered  for  the  other  part,  ren- 
der it  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law  for  the  ex- 
cepted transgressions    to  be   pardoned  on  any  terms  ? 
Then  there  was  as  complete  an  atonement  for  the  ex- 
cepted transgressions  as  for  the  rest,  and  the  excep- 
tion was  no  exception  :  and  as  there  is  essentially  but 
one  divine  law  in  the  universe,  the  great  law  of  love, 
(holiness  being  radically  the  same  in  all  worlds,)  what 
should  hinder  the  sins  of  devils,  (who  are  under  the 
2  L 


398  EXPRESSLY  [PART  HI. 

same  general  law,)  from  sharing  an  equal  influence 
with  the  excepted  transgressions   of  men  ? 

Did  the  common  world  and  nature  produce  so  great 
a  wonder  ?  That  is  to  say,  did  these  render  the  par- 
don of  some  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law,  on 
the  supposition  of  their  faith,  for  whom  atonement  was 
expressly  not  made  ?  How  could  they  nullify  an  ex- 
press exception  and  render  it  no  exception  ?  And 
what  particle  of  proof  from  the  Bible  of  this  omni- 
potent influence  of  a  common  world  and  nature  ?  Where 
is  the  chapter  and  verse  ? 

In  the  supposed  case  of  the  prince  of  Wales,  be- 
sides the  ten  noblemen,  say  there  were  twenty  more 
who  had  committed  the  same  crime.  Keep  in  mind 
that  the  onlv  way  in  which  he  could  render  the  pardon 
of  any  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law,  was  by 
making  as  strong  an  impression  as  their  death  would 
have  made,  that  the  law  was  still  to  be  executed  on 
future  offenders.  Suppose  now  that  the  prince  expressly 
offered  himself  for  the  ten,  and  expressly  did  not  offer 
himself  for  the  twenty  ;  how  could  his  death  answer  in 
ihe  room  of  the  punishment  of  the  twenty,  or  on  any 
conditions  render  their  pardon  consistent  with  the  ho- 
nour of  the  law  ?  Could  his  living  under  the  same 
law  that  all  had  broken,  and  atoning  for  that  species  of 
crime  which  all  had  committed,  and  belonging  to  the 
same  kingdom,  and  having  the  blood  of  an  Englishman 
in  his  veins,  and  the  honours  of  a  prince  upon  his  head, 
make  any  difference  in  favour  of  those  who  were  ex- 
pressly excluded  ?  Who,  after  seeing  the  twenty  par- 
doned for  whom  he  did  not  die,  would  conclude  that 
all  future  forgers  would  be  punished  ?  And  if  the 
twenty  could  not  be  discharged  on  any  terms,  it  is  not 
true  that  his  death  rendered  their  pardon  consistent 


CHAP.  VII.]  FOR  ALL.  390 

with  the  honour  of  the  law  on  certain  conditions  :  and 
the  offer  to  them  on  those  conditions,  would  either  be 
deceptive  or  a  bare-faced  mockery. 

This  one  decisive  fact  still  rises  before  us  :  the  three 
circumstances  were  all  tried  upon  the  elect,  and  they 
could  not  procure  pardon  for  the  chosen  of  God,  with 
all  the  faith  imparted  to  them,  without  an  atonement 
expressly  offered  for  them.  And  it  is  wonderful  if 
they  exerted  a  more  powerful  influence  upon  the  non- 
elect,  and  brought  them  into  a  salvable  state,  not  only 
without  an  atonement,  but  notwithstanding  their  ex- 
press exclusion. 

But  if  the  three  circumstances  must  be  allowed  to 
liave  the  mighty  influence  pleaded  for,  then  in  all  fair- 
ness they  ought  to  be  considered  as  containing  in  them- 
selves  the  express  purpose  in  favour  of  all.  The  im- 
maculate and  dignified  character  of  the  Victim  could 
no  more  affect  non-elect  men  than  devils,  without  some 
intelligible  reference  to  the  former  rather  than  the  lat- 
ter. If  the  three  circumstances  contained  that  refers 
ence,  and  pointed  to  the  human  rather  than  the  ange- 
lic part  so  intelligibly  that  their  language  is  under- 
stood on  earth,  (and  if  not  understood  how  comes  this 
influence  to  be  so  confidently  ascribed  to  them  ?)  then 
in  all  reason  they  ought  to  be  regarded  as  expressing 
themselves  the  universal  purpose.  If  they  brought 
the  sacrifice  so  to  bear  upon  all  as  to  render  all  men 
pardonable  upon  their  believing,  and  did  this  by  indi- 
cating a  reference  to  the  race  at  large,  then  they  help- 
ed to  accomplish  an  actual  and  complete  atonement 
for  all  as  moral  agents,  and  wrought  this  effect  by  ex- 
pressly announcing  to  the  world  the  universal  re- 
ference. 

Thus  it  seems  that  nothing  could  give  the  atonement 
such  an  influence  on  the  race  at  large  as  it  confessedly 
had,,  but  an  express  declaration,  some  way  pronounced. 


400  EXPRESSLY  [PART  III. 

that  it  was  so  offered  and  accepted  for  all  as  to  have 
this  precise  effect,  "  that  whosoever  believeth — should 
not  perish."  Such  a  declaration  we  find  in  words. 
And  when  we  have  found  the  very  thing  that  was  ne- 
cessary to  give  the  atonement  this  effect,  why  should 
we  look  any  further,  or  lose  ourselves  in  unintelligible 
language  about  a  sufficiency  which  without  the  ex- 
press purpose  would  have  amounted  to  nothing  ? 

Let  us  now  repair  to  the  Scriptures.  And  here  the 
first  thing  that  strikes  us  on  every  page  is,  that  the 
atonement  was  expressly  accepted  for  all.  This  ap- 
pears as  often  as  we  hear  the  Father  tender  life  to  all, 
and  promise  with  an  oath  that  they  shall  live  on  the 
ground  of  that  satisfaction,  provided  they  believe. 
This  is  pledging  all  that  is  sacred  in  him  that  he  has 
accepted  it  in  behalf  of  a  whole  world  of  moral  agents. 
It  is  itself  the  public  and  formal  acceptance. 

And  when  we  look  for  the  express  and  universal 
purpose  of  the  offering,  the  evidence  is  equally  decisive, 
iiiiS  purpose  is  found  in  whatever  declares  to  the 
world,  directly  or  indirectly,  that  Christ  died  to  make 
atonement  for  all.     And  what  less  than  this  can  be 
meant  by  the  "  price"  in  the  hand  of  a  fool  which  he 
has  no  heart  to  improve  ?  or  by  the  repeated  declara- 
tion that  God  "  has  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked,  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and 
live;"  that  he  is  "not willing  that  any  should  perish, 
but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance"  ?  or  by  the 
universal  call,  attended  by  the  proclamation  that  "  all 
things  are  ready"  ?  or  by  the  pressure  of  the  command 
upon  all,  and  the  awful  punishment  of  unbelievers  ? 
or  by  the  solemn  appeal,  "  What  could  have  been  done 
more  to  my  vineyard  that  I  hare  not  done  in  it  ?"    What 
else  can  be  meant  by  the  "  birth-right"  which  all  are 
warned  against  selling,  and  which  when  sold  cannot 


CHAP.  VII.]  FOR  ALL.  401 

be  recovered  though  sought  "  carefully  with  tears"  ? 
But  you  ask  for  something  more  direct.  What  then 
will  satisfy  ?  Do  you  require  an  explicit  declaration 
that  Christ  died  for  all,  even  for  as  many  as  were 
dead  ?  "  VVe  thus  judge,  that  if  One  died  for  all,  then 
were  all  dead,  and  that  he  died  for  all,  that  they  which 
live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves,  but 
unto  him  which  died  for  them  and  rose  again."  "  We 
trust  in  the  living  God  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men, 
specially  of  those  that  believe."  "  I  exhort  there- 
fore that  first  of  all  supplications — be  made  for  a  11  men, 
for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in  authority  : — for  this 
is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour, 
who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to  come  unto 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For  there  is  one  God,  and 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all."  We  must 
pray  for  all  because  there  is  a  Mediator  and  a  ransom 
for  all,  and  because  God  wills  all  men  to  be  saved. 
And  no  one  can  open  his  Bible  without  finding  these 
words  put  into  his  mouth :  "  All  we  like  sheep  have 
gone  astray,  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity 
of  us  all."  Would  it  satisfy  you  better  to  hear  it  said 
that  he  died  for  each  and  every  one  ?  "  We  see  Jesus, 
who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels  for  the 
suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  that 
lie  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for  every 
man  ;"  (**$%  -a-uvra^  for  every  one.)  Do  you  insist  on 
a  positive  declaration  that  he  atoned  for  the  whole 
world?  "  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not 
for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.'' 
"  The  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world.''  "  The  bread  of  God  is  he  which — giveth  life 
unto  the  world."  "  The  bread — is  my  flesh  which  I 
will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  Do  you  demand  3 
2L2 


402  EXPRESSLY  [PART  III. 

categorical  assertion  that  he  died  for  the  identical  per- 
sons who  eventually  perish  ?  "  Through  thy  know- 
ledge shall  the  weak  brother  perish  for  whom  Christ 
died."  "  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat  for  whom 
Christ  died."  "  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among 
you  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even 
denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bring  upon 
themselves  swift  destruction."  The  prophecy  of 
Caiaphas  foretold  that  Christ  should  die  for  the  Jewish 
u  nation,"  the  mass  of  whom  went  to  their  place*. 

Forced  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  away 
the  literal  and  obvious  meaning  of  these  texts,  leaving 
the  Bible  really  too  uncertain  to  support  any  thing. 
But  the  Synod  of  Dort,  who  spoke  the  language  of  the 
Calvinistic  world  two  centuries  ago,  allow  to  them 
their  literal  import,  and  tell  us  that  the  same  had  been 
the  common  construction.  And  indeed  what  need  of 
this  effort  to  limit  these  passages,  since  in  their  most  uni- 
versal form  they  prove  no  more  than  that  Christ  died 
for  all  in  such  a  sense  as  to  render  their  pardon  con- 
sistent with  the  honour  of  the  law  if  they  would  be- 
lieve ;  a  position  which  must  be  admitted  to  be  true  if 
these  texts  were  out  of  the  Bible. 

And  now  I  ask,  what  proof  from  Scripture  or  reason 
can  be  set  against  all  this  mass  of  evidence  ?  Reason 
is  silent ;  but  what  counteracting  testimony  can  be 
brought  from  the  word  of  God  ?  Not  a  particle.  You 
may  find  there  the  doctrine  of  election.  You  may 
find  a  seed  given  to  Christ  as  a  personal  reward  for 
the  merit  of  his  obedience  "  unto  death."  You  may 
find  notices  of  the  larger  ransom,  made  up  of  expia- 

*Prov.  17.  16.  Isai.  5.  4.  and  53.  6.  Ezek.  33.  11.  Mat.  22.  4. 
John  1.  29.  and  6.  33,  51.  and  11.  50—52.  Rom.  14.  15.  1  Cor.  8. 
11.  2  Cor.  5.  14,  15.  1  Tim.  2.  1—6.  and  4.  10.  Hcb.  2.  9.  and  12. 
T6;  17.  2  Pet.  2.1.  and  3.  9.  1  John  2.  2. 


CHAP.  VII.]  FOR  ALL.  403 

lion  and  merit,  by  which  he  purchased  the  sanctifica- 
tion  and  salvation  of  the  elect.  You  may  find  the 
Redeemer  in  his  work  on  earth  manifesting,  even  with 
the  consent  of  the  Father,  a  special  reference  to  the 
elect  as  the  interest  which  fell  to  him  as  one  of  the  con- 
tracting Parties  ;  and  may  find  the  completion  of  their 
salvation  a  leading  end  of  his  receiving  the  kingdom. 
This  is  all  you  will  find  :  and  all  this,  if  I  mistake  not, 
has  been  shown  to  be  consistent  with  a  general  atone- 
ment. Is  it  then  too  much  to  say,  that  the  whole  array 
of  evidence  which  has  been  spread  over  this  and  the 
foregoing  chapters,  stands  without  a  scintilla  of  oppos- 
ing testimony  ?  that  the  unnumbered  texts  which  have 
been  quoted,  which  with  their  kindred  ones  form  the 
whole  texture  of  divine  Revelation,  have  nothing  to 
weaken  their  force  or  limit  their  universality  ? 

I  have  heard  excellent  men  say,  in  answer  to  every 
argument  which  could  be  urged,  I  am  resolved  to  abide 
by  the  language  of  Scripture.  Rut  1  entreat  them  to 
consider  who  it  is  that  abides  by  the  language- of 
Scripture.  There  is  not  a  text  in  the  Bible  which  as- 
serts that  Christ  did  not  atone  for  all ;  but  there  are 
many  which  affirm  in  the  plainest  terms  that  he  did. 
We  are  under  no  necessity  to  put  a  forced  construction 
on  a  single  passage  ;  but  our  brethren  are  obliged  to 
limit  the  most  universal  terms.  They  are  grieved  that 
we,  (as  they  view  the  subject,)  appeal  from  Scripture 
to  human  reasonings  ;  and  yet  how  often,  when  press- 
ed with  some  of  our  plain  texts,  they  will  turn  and  say, 
I  cannot  conceive  that  God  should  provide  salvation 
for  those  whom  he  did  not  intend  to  save.  This  very- 
resort  to  human  reasoning  frequently  appears  to  be  the 
strongest  bar  against  their  admitting  the  plain  and  ob- 
vious meaning  of  ihe  word  of  God.  I  say  this  with  all 
tenderness,  and  if  I  wound  a  feeling  by  it,  I  shall  wish 
that  it  had  been  suppressed. 


APPENDIX, 

EXHIBITING    THE   INFLUENCE   OF 

CHRIST'S  OBEDIENCE, 

AND  SHOWING  THAT  ON  THIS  GROUND  THE  CHURCH  RECEIVE 

ALL  POSITIVE  GOOD: 

IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  THEORY  WHICH  REPRESENTS 


TO  BE  THE  ONLY  BLESSING 


PROCURED    BY 


THE  REDEEMER. 


APPENDIX. 


An  opinion  has  gone  forth  that  Christ  procured  for  us 
no  other  benefit  than  pardon  ;  that  besides  clearing  from 
the  current  of  blessings  those  obstructions  which  sin  had 
thrown  upon  it,  he  is  in  no  sense  the  ground  of  our  posi- 
tive happiness ;  and  that  in  respect  to  sanctification,  he 
only  made  such  a  work  consistent  with  the  wisdom  of  God 
by  rendering  remission  possible.  Such  a  sentiment  ought 
to  be  subjected  to  a  rigid  and  solemn  scrutiny. 

That  Christ  must  have  had  a.  reward,  and  one  awarded 
by  law,  is  just  as  certain  as  that  he  was  "  made  under  law" 
and  received  a  command  to  die.  If  the  Father  assumed 
the  rights  of  the  Godhead,  and  took  the  ground  of  authori- 
tatively requiring  the  service,  he  must  reward  it  as  a  ser- 
vice done  to  himself.  But  whatever  reward  Christ  receiv- 
ed, was  for  his  obedience  alone,  and  not  for  his  sufferings 
as  suck.  Sufferings  viewed  by  themselves,  that  is,  as  un- 
commanded,  could  be  entitled  to  nothing.  Besides,  the 
law  promised  no  reward  to  any  thing  but  obedience. 

Now  if  Christ  received  a  reward,  it  must  have  consisted 
in  blessings  for  men.  He  had  no  private  wants  to  supply, 
no  selfish  propensities  to  satisfy  by  a  personal  and  separate 
good  :  and  without  blessings  for  men  he  could  have  had  no 
redeemed  kingdom  to  reign  over,  not  a  gift  in  his  hand 
ever  to  tender  to  the  human  race,  and  nothing  at  all  to 
gratify  his  benevolence. 

Our  general  opinion  is,  that  for  his  filial  obedience  he 
received  the  inheritance  of  a  Son,  and  was  made  "  Heir  of 
all  things ;"  and  that  in  the  "all  things"  was  compre- 
hended the  whole  amount  of  positive  good  ever  intended  for 
a  fallen  race,  or  ever  to  be  placed  within  their  reach,  in- 
cluding whatever  was  to  be  conferred  on  them  sovereignly 
or  in  gracious  rewards,  or  offered  to  them  on  the  condition 
of  their  faith.  We  believe  that  all  these  things  were  given 
to  him  as  the  legal  reward  of  that  amazing  exhibition  of 
holiness  which  he  made  under  law,  and  belong  to  the  ge- 
neral estate  which  he  holds  by  a  mediatorial  claim,  and 
were  made  over  to  him,  not  for  his  own  private  use,  but  to 
be  disposed  of  exactly  as  they  are, — some  in  sovereign  gifts, 
some  in  gracious  rewards,  and  some  barely  offered  to  capa- 
ble agents,  leaving  the  issue  to  be  decided  by  them. 


408  APPENDIX. 

The  C(  gifts"  which  we  suppose  he  "  received  for  men,'* 
may  be  divided  into  two  classes  :  first,  regenerating  grace 
for  the  elect  as  passive  recipients  ;  secondly,  the  good  ob- 
tained for  moral  agents.  In  the  latter  class  we  understand 
to  be  comprised  whatever  he  bestows  in  sovereign  gifts 
fitted  to  a  state  of  probation  which  moral  agents  enjoy,  in- 
cluding the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Spirit  on  the  un« 
regenerate ;  whatever  he  imparts  to  believers  in  gracious 
rewards,  comprehending  their  continued  sanctification  ;  and 
whatever  he  offers  to  men  on  the  condition  of  their  faith, 
constituting  a  provision  for  moal  agents  to  improve.  I 
shall  glance  at  both  classes,  but  shall  dwell  chiefly  on  the 
latter.  And  in  considering  the  good  obtained  for  moral 
agents,  though  I  shall  refer  occasionally  to  what  he  sove- 
reignly bestows,  I  shall  principally  attend  to  that  which  he 
offers  to  men  on  the  condition  of  their  faith,  and  confers  on 
believers  in  gracious  rewards. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  system  that  Christ  obeyed  in  our  room 
to  supersede  the  necessity  of  our  obedience,  as  he  suffered  in 
our  room  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  our  sufferings.  The 
obedience  which  we  owed  he  was  never  bound  to  pay,  but 
only  that  which  was  due  from  him.  The  obedience  which 
was  due  from  him  we  never  owed,  and  we  still  are  bound  to 
render  that  which  was  demanded  of  us.  He  obeyed  for 
himself,  and  we  obey  for  .ourselves. 

Nor  yet  is  it  any  part  of  our  system  that  we  are  rewarded 
for  two  things  at  once.  (Christ's  obedience  and  our  own,) 
but  rather  that  two  persons  in  different  senses  are  reward- 
ed by  the  same  thing.  A  divine  reward  is  a  token  of  ap- 
probation presented  as  a  motive  to  virtue,  and  is  the  re- 
compense ol  him  alone  who  is  therein  approved.  It  may 
be  legal,  and  it  may  be  gracious.  Qur  obedience,  begun 
late  and  continuing  imperfect,  is  not  entitled  to  reward  by 
law,  but  yet  is  a  thing  really  approved  ;  and  therefore  is 
fitted  to  receive,  not  the  legal,  but  the  gracious  tokens  of 
approbation.  What  Christ  receivi  d  was  in  approbation  of 
his  righteousness  alone,  and  was  of  course  a  reward  to  none 
but  himself.  The  direct  act  of  giving  to  him,  though  for 
the  use  of  those  who  should  be  approved,  was  not  itself  the 
approbation  of  them.  But  the  grant  consisted  in  blessings 
for  our  use.  When  those  blessings  come  from  his  hands, 
they  are  tokens  of  approbation  of  none  but  us.  The  same 
blessing  therefore  which  to  him  is  the  reward  of  law,  is  to 
us  the  reward  of  grace.  As  it  issued  from  Godhead,  it  was 
his  reward  not  ours :  as  it  comes  from  his  hands,  it  is  our 


APPENDIX.  409 

reward  not  his.  Though  therefore  we  are  blessed  for  his 
sake,  (as  without  his  righteousness  to  detach  the  blessings 
from  God  they  could  not  have  come  to  us,)  we  are  rewarded 
solely  for  our  own  ;  that  is,  the  benefits  as  they  come  from 
his  hands,  are  to  none  but  us  the  tokens  of  approbation 
presented  as  motives  to  virtue. 

We  may  see  therefore  in  what  sense  it  can  be  true  that 
e  ernal  life  is  granted  for  Christ's  sake  alone,  and  yet  is  a 
token  of  approbation  to  us,  and  would  not  have  come  to  us 
had  we  not  been  approved.  As  it  came  out  from  Godhead 
according  to  law,  it  came  for  his  sake  alone ;  but  it  was 
delivered  to  him,  not  for  his  own  private  use,  but  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  would  obey  him.  It  would  not  have 
been  a  reward  nor  an  honour  to  Christ  to  have  deposited 
with  him  eternal  life  for  those  who  should  remain  his  ene- 
mies ;  nor  would  it  have  comported  with  the  honour  of  the. 
law  to  have  delivered  to  him  that  blessing  for  those  who 
should  refuse  to  obey.  And  this  distinction  in  favour  of 
believers  was  because  they  were  fit  to  be  approved.  While 
therefore  the  blessing  comes  out  from  God  on  Christ's 
account,  it  comes  to  us  as  a  gracious  token  of  approba- 
tion. 

But  it  is  said  that  if  Christ  is  the  ground  of  what  believ- 
ers obtain,  they  must  all  receive  equally.  Not  so.  It  was 
the  very  idea  of  his  reward  that  his  disciples  should  receive 
according  to  the  interest  which  they  hold  in  his  heart,  or  in 
proportion  as  they  love  and  obey  him.  The  good  was  dealt 
out  to  him  with  an  express  understanding  that  it  should  go 
to  them  according  to  this  rule.  The  only  reward,  (as  relates 
to  the  present  subject,)  which  he  ever  desired,  was  that  his 
disciples  should  receive  at  his  hands  the  gracious  tokens  of 
approbation  according  to  their  fitness  to  be  approved.  Thus 
while  his  merit  is  the  legal  ground,  their  holiness,  which 
constitutes  a  sort  of  spiritual  capacity,  is  the  measure  of 
their  blessedness. 

A  parent  labours  for  a  man  and  receives  his  wages  in  ar- 
ticles of  clothing  for  his  children  of  different  ages,  which 
he  could  not  wear  himself.  It  is  as  much  a  transaction  be- 
tween him  and  his  employer,  and  the  reward  is  as  much  his 
own,  as  though  it  had  consisted  in  money.  But  he  did  not 
fulfil  an  obligation  which  belonged  to  the  children,  or  do  a 
work  in  their  room  which  they  were  bound  to  perform.  They 
were  never  under  obligations  to  render  that  service.  When 
he  has  received  the  articles,  he  deals  them  out  to  his  chil- 
dren according  to  their  ages  and  character,  and  gives  to 
Q  M 


410  APPENDIX. 

none  further  than  they  are  approved,  except  what  he  sove- 
reignly bestows  to  put  them  in  convenient  circumstances  to 
render  the  service  required. 

This  is  the  explanation  of  the  system,  and  now  for  the 
proof.  The  principle  which  I  set  up  is,  that  it  did  not 
comport  with  the  highest  honour  of  the  law  for  God  to  is- 
sue a  single  positive  good  but  out  of  respect  to  a  perfect 
righteousness.  It  was  as  much  a  principle  of  the  first  co- 
venant not  to  bestow  a  cup  of  cold  water  out  of  respect  to 
any  other  than  a  righteousness  perfect  for  the  time  the  sub- 
ject had  been  in  existence,  as  it  was  that  Adam  should  not 
be  confirmed  in  happiness  without  an  obedience  entire 
through  the  period  of  his  probation  :  for  the  moment  the 
first  sin  appeared,  the  law  doomed  the  transgressor  to  the 
loss  of  all  things.  The  following  reasonings  therefore  will 
as  much  prove  that  every  particle  of  positive  good  ever  des- 
tined to  reach  a  sinful  world,  was  granted  as  a  reward  to 
Christ,  as  that  the  blessings  were  which  constitute  the  re- 
ward of  believers.  The  latter  however  I  have  chiefly  in 
view. 

In  the  two  great  instances  of  a  government  by  law  which 
have  come  to  our  knowledge,  it  was  a  principle  to  require 
creatures  to  obey  before  they  were  confirmed  in  holiness 
and  happiness,  and  not  to  confer  a  covenant  claim  to  im- 
mortality but  as  the  reward  of  a  finished  righteousness. 
The  inhabitants  of  heaven  were  not  confirmed  at  first,  for 
some  of  them  fell;  and  it  was  long  before  we  heard  of 
"  elect  angels."  Man  was  not  confirmed  at  first,  and  the 
issue  is  known  to  us  all.  This  requisition  of  obedience  as 
an  antecedent  to  the  gift  of  eternal  life,  was  not  indeed  so 
absolutely  necessary  as  the  punishment  of  sin  without  an 
atonement;  but  it  answered  the  important  purposed'  ho- 
nouring the  law.  It  held  this  language  in  the  ears  of  the 
universe  :  no  creature  shall  receive  eternal  life  till  he  has 
first  done  homage  to  my  law.  There  was  indeed  no  other 
way  of  conferring  immortality  in  a  governmental  form.  In 
any  other  way  it  must  have  been  a  sovereign  gift.  On  either 
plan  the  gift  to  the  possessor  and  the  direct  benevolence  of 
God  would  be  the  same  ;  but  the  method  chosen  had  the 
advantage  of  showing  God's  determination  to  honour  his 
righteous  statutes. 

This  then  must  be  considered  the  settled  principle  of  the 
divine  law.  And  there  was  no  reason  why  the  principle 
should  be  given  up  under  the  Gospel.  No  necessity  <  list- 
ed for  the  abandonment  ;  for  nothing  was  easier   than   to 


APPENDIX.  411 

make  over  to  Christ  as  a  legal  reward  the  whole  inheritance 
for  the  benefit  of  the  "joint  heirs."  This  indeed  was  not 
so  necessary  as  an  atonement  in  the  matter  of  pardon,  but  it 
answered  all  the  purposes  of  the  original  principle. 

Atonement  covered  sin  and  placed  us  back  where  Adam 
stood  the  moment  he  was  created,  before  he  had  either 
obeyed  or  transgressed.  But  how  is  eternal  life  to  reach 
us  ?  Upon  the  original  principle  it  must  be  the  reward  of  a 
perfect  obedience.  Well,  you  say,  when  all  the  believer's 
sin  is  covered,  the  imperfection  of  his  obedience  is  covered 
also  ;  and  that  obedience,  standing  thus  spotless,  may  be 
rewarded  for  its  own  sake.  It  may  indeed  without  that  ut- 
ter prostration  of  government  which  would  have  resulted 
from  pardon  without  an  atonement,  but  not  without  depart- 
ing from  one  of  the  two  great  principles  of  the  law.  These 
were,  to  punish  sin,  and  to  grant  no  reward  but  to  a  perfect 
and  uninterrupted  obedience.  But  your  theory  represents 
God  as  coming  down  from  this  high  ground  to  reward  an 
obedience  which  possesses  neither  of  these  attributes.  That 
its  imperfection  is  covered,  only  takes  away  its  sin  ;  but  it 
still  wants  something  positive  to  make  it  sterling.  No  co- 
vering of  imperfection  can  add  to  it  that  standard  weight  and 
measure  which  the  law  requires.  No  washing  can  render  it 
that  thing  to  which  the  reward  was  originally  promised.  If 
the  recompense  is  dealt  out  directly  to  this  shrivelled  mor- 
sel, more  than  half  of  the  original  demand  of  the  law  is  gi- 
ven up.  This  is  the  precise  thing  that  has  been  overlook- 
ed. Because  God  could  daily  bestow  good  on  Adam  for 
his  own  works,  it  is  inferred  that  he  may  on  believers  after 
their  sin  is  covered;  not  considering  that  in  the  former  in- 
stance he  rewarded  a  perfect  and  uninterrupted  obedience, 
and  in  the  latter,  would  recompense  one  defective  in  both  of 
these  respects.  This  would  certainly  be  a  very  material 
change  in  the  principles  of  the  divine  administration,  and  a 
change  altogether  at  the  expense  of  law.  It  would  be  an 
innovation  wholly  needless,  and  ought  not  to  be  believed 
without  decisive  evidence. 

But  it  is  said  that  to  suppose  God  unwilling  to  reward 
the  obedience  of  his  people  after  their  sin  is  covered,  with- 
out calling  in  the  aid  of  another's  righteousness,  would  mi- 
litate against  his  grace  and  benevolence.  But  why  ?  If  a 
certain  amount  of  good  is  dispensed  te  the  ill-deserving, 
which  upon  every  principle  is  both  benevolent  and  gracicus, 
why  should  these  qualities  be  diminished  by  any  respect 
that  may  be  paid,  on  account  of  the  honour  of  the  law,  to 


412  APPENDIX. 

the  obedience  of  Christ  ?  If  the  law  refuses  to  deliver  that* 
good  to  any  but  a  perfect  obedience,  and  God,  to  save  the 
honour  of  the  law,  contrives  to  measure  it  out  to  Christ, 
with  intent  that  it  shall  go  through  him  to  sinners,  is  it  not 
as  great  a  favour  to  the  ill-deserving  as  though  it  had  pass- 
ed directly  to  them  ?  And  is  not  the  benevolence  as  great 
at  least  as  though  it  had  rushed  to  the  conclusion  without 
respect  to  the  law  ?  The  gift  is  the  same  to  the  sinner,  and 
finds  him  as  ill-deserving,  as  though  it  had  come  in  the 
other  way,  while  the  method  chosen  subserves  the  further 
end  of  honouring  a  righteous  law.  The  only  difference  is, 
that  upon  one  plan  the  principle  of  the  law  is  adhered  to, 
on  the  other  it  is  given  up.  And  why  the  benevolence  or 
grace  should  be  the  greater  for  selecting  the  manner  most 
injurious  to  the  law,  when  no  one  is  benefited  by  it,  would 
be  hard  to  tell.  At  any  rate  upon  this  principle  grace  and 
benevolence  are  both  excluded  from  pardon.  It  is  admitted 
on  all  hands  that  this  favour  is  granted  to  sinners  out  of  re- 
spect to  the  atonement  of  Christ :  and  did  any  one  but  an 
infidel  ever  dream  that  the  grace  or  benevolence  of  pardon 
was  the  less  on  that  account  ?  And  if  without  impairing 
the  benevolence  or  grace  of  the  gift,  remission  can  be  ad- 
ministered on  account  of  the  expiation  of  Christ,  why  not 
eternal  life  on  account  of  his  obedience  ? 

Having  thus  stated  the  ground  on  which  our  principle 
rests,  and  cleared  off  some  of  the  objections,  I  will  now  bring 
forward  the  proofs  that  such  a  principle  does  exist  under  the 
administration  of  grace.  I  will  first  suggest  some  consi- 
derations which  appear  to  have  less  weight,  and  then  others 
of  a  more  decisive  character. 

(1.)  The  plan  in  question  sends  us  immediately  to  God 
for  all  positive  good  ;  not  indeed  as  sinners,  for  our  sin  is 
covered  by  the  atonement,  but  as  having  nothing  to  offer 
but  an  imperfect  obedience.  All  that  Christ  does  is  to 
cover  the  sin  of  that  imperfection,  leaving  the  imperfection 
still  remaining  :  and  after  men  are  thus  purged  from  guilt, 
with  all  that  defect  of  positive  righteousness  they  are  sent  to 
God  without  a  Mediator  for  their  whole  positive  salvation. 
After  the  sin  of  withholding  ninety  degrees  of  obedience  is 
pardoned,  ten  degrees  are  accepted,  without  a  Mediator, 
where  the  law  demanded  a  hundred. 

(2.)  This  system  takes  away  one  half  of  a  Saviour  and 
one  half  of  his  praise.  According  to  its  representation, 
Christ  procured  our  release  from  priscn,  and  secured  us 
against  a  return  to  the  prison-house,  and  then   left  us  to 


APPENDIX.  413 

make  our  way  through  the  world  alone,  to  rise  to  opulence 
and  a  throne  by  our  own  independent  merit,  supported  by 
such  strength  and  favoured  with  such  mercy  as  we  may  ob- 
tain from  God  without  a  Mediator.  We  are  left  to  tight 
the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil  without  the  Captain  of  the 
Lords  host,  and  to  conquer,  not  under  his  banner,  but  in 
a  separate  warfare.  Half  of  our  dependance  on  Christ  is 
thus  taken  away  ;  and  for  all  the  positive  good  of  both 
worlds  we  must  rely  on  our  own  works,  or  on  the  mercy  of 
the  pure  Godhead,  The  Redeemer  is  turned  out  of  one 
half  of  our  religion,  and  the  whole  is  left  cold  and  gloomy. 
We  no  longer  feel  that  every  particle  of  food,  and  every  arti- 
cle of  raiment,  was  procured  by  our  divine  Friend,  and 
turn  him  off  with  the  frigid  acknowledgment  that  he  was 
the  mere  antecedent  of  these  gifts.  Our  common  comforts 
upon  this  plan  are  not  half  so  sweet,  nor  the  crown  in  pros- 
pect half  so  precious.  How  delightful  to  view  all  these 
things  as  Christ's,  earned  by  his  obedience,  and  laid  up  in 
him  for  our  use. 

(3.)  We  have  been  accustomed  to  consider  Christ  the 
centre  of  all  Bible  truths  ;  but  this  scheme  separates  from 
him  the  whole  action  of  the  Spirit,  and  every  smile  and  fa- 
vour of  heaven.'  It  separates  from  him,  or  attaches  to  hirn 
but  loosely  and  in  a  consequential  way,  the  greater  part  of 
the  Bible.  It  is  a  comfortless  theory  which  thus  associates 
with  our  blessed  Redeemer  a  bare  escape  from  prison,  and 
no  positive  good,  no  light,  no  consolation,  no  inheritance. 

(4.)  We  have  been  accustomed  to  suppose  that  the  inter- 
cession of  Christ  is  for  more  than  pardon,  and  have  even 
heard  him  say,  "  I  will  pray  the  Father  and  he  shall  ive 
you  another  Comforter."  And  again,  "  Holy  Father,  keep 
through  thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me, 
that  they  may  be  one  as  we  are. — I  pray  not  that  thou 
shouldst  take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  thou  shouldst 
keep  them  from  the  evil. — -Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth. 
— Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which 
shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word ;  that  they  all  may 
be  one ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they 
also  may  be  one  in  us. — Father,  I  will  that  they  also  whom 
thou  hast  given  me  be  with  me  where  I  am,  that  they  may 
behold  my  glory  which  thou  hast  given  me*."  This  seems 
to  have  been  more  than  a  prayer  of  the  man,  and  nothing 
less  than  the  intercession  of  the  Mediator  ;  for  he  repeatealy 

*  John  14.  16,  and  17. 11—24* 

2M2 


414  APPENDIX. 

alludes  to  his  mediatorial  fidelity,  reward,  and  authority. 
Now  it  is  apparent  that  the  whole  of  his  intercession  must 
be  founded  on  what  he  himself  has  done  and  suffered  ;  other- 
wise it  would  seem  to  be  an  unmeaning  and  useless  thing-, 
and  merely  to  import  that  God  needs  solicitation  as  one 
loath  to  give.  Indeed  as  it  is  made  in  heaven,  we  can  form 
no  other  idea  of  it  than  as  the  silent  plea  or  influence  of 
what  he  did  and  suffered  on  earth.  His  intercession  for 
pardon  we  know  is  founded  on  his  death  ;  for  had  not  this 
been  offered,  that  could  not  have  been  made.  By  a  parity 
of  reason,  if  he  pleads  for  more  than  pardon,  this  part  of  his 
intercession  must  be  founded  on  his  positive  righteousness. 
It  would  seem  therefore  that  we  must  either  reject  the  theory 
in  question,  or  plainly  assert,  notwithstanding  the  quota- 
tions which  have  been  made,  that  Christ  intercedes  for  no- 
thing but  pardon. 

(5.)  The  Church  is  called  "the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife, " 
and  believers  are  denominated  his  "seed."  The  principal 
idea  suggested  by  these  figures  is,  not  that  they  are  par- 
doned on  his  account,  but  that  they  inherit  from  him  or  for 
his  sake.  A  wife  or  child  is  not  generally  pardoned  on  ac- 
count of  the  husband  or  father,  but  they  uniformly  inherit 
with  or  from  their  correlates.  I  am  sensible  that  these 
names  are  applied  for  other  reasons  ;  but  so  far  as  they  sug- 
gest the  treatment  which  believers  receive  on  Christ's  ac- 
count, they  point  us  to  the  inheritance  rather  than  to 
pardon. 

(t>.)  It  would  seem  reasonable  to  suppose  that  all  the 
good  which  is  suspended  on  faith  in  Christ,  and  especially 
on  trust  in  him*,  was  procured  by  Christ ;  and  that  faith 
and  trust,  when  they  take  hold  of  that  offer  and  promise, 
rely  on  him  as  the  Procurer  of  all  that  is  there  engaged  : 
otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  faith  and  trust  in  that 
promise  are  faith  and  trust  in  Christ,  any  more  than  in  Ga- 
briel or  Adam.  Are  they  so  called  because  he  procured 
pardon,  and  thus  opened  the  way  for  eternal  life  to  be  be- 
stowed w  ithout  further  respect  to  him  ?  This  certainly  has 
the  appearance  of  being  far-fetched.  To  talk  of  a  son's  de- 
pending on  a  father  for  an  estate  which  he  is  to  earn  him- 
self or  receive  as  a  present  from  another,  merely  because 
the  father  pays  his  debt  and  sets  him  at  liberty  to  work  for 
himself  or  apply  to  another,  is  manifestly  using  language 
pa  a  way  calculated  to  deceive.     Are  these  graces  so  called 

*  Pf.  2.  12.     Rom.  15.  12,     Eph.  1.  12,  13. 


APPENDIX.  154 

merely  because  they  expect  to  receive  from  the  hands  of 
Christ  as  God's  Distributor  ?  or  merely  because  the  pro- 
mise has  been  announced  by  him  and  his  commissioned  ser- 
vants ?  Upon  these  principles  we  might  with  some  reason 
talk  of  faith  and  trust  in  the  "  ministering  spirits,  and 
in  other  instruments  of  promised  good,  (for  they  are  real 
distributors,)  and  faith  and  trust  in  the  angels  of  Bethle- 
hem, and  in  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  tor  they  have  proclaim- 
ed the  promises  of  God. 

But  it  is  still  more  difficult  to  see  upon  this  plan  why 
eternal  life  should  be  promised,  and  promised  exclusively, 
to  a  trust  in  Christ  for  salvation.  I  can  see  a  good  reason 
for  connecting  pardon  with  a  reliance  on  him  for  that  dis- 
charge ;  but  why  a  trust  in  the  word  and  agency  of  a  mere 
instrument  should  be  the  all  in  all  in  the  condition  of  eter- 
nal life, — why  a  bare  Agent,  appointed  to  utter  the  words 
and  distribute  the  goods  of  another,  should  so  till  the  whole 
field  of  vision,  and  occupy  the  place  which  would  seem  bet- 
ter to  befit  the  Being  who  employed  him,  is  not  so  easy  to 
explain. 

That  eternal  life  is  promised  to  faith  and  trust  in  Christ, 
and  suspended  on  no  other  condition,  tht  Scriptures  abun- 
dantly teach.  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his 
only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life."  "  This  is  the  will 
of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  that  seeth  the  Son  and 
believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life,  and  I  will 
raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  "  For  this  cause  I  obtain- 
ed mercy,  that  in  me  first  Jesus  Christ  might  show  forth 
all  long-sutfering  for  a  pattern  to  them  which  should  here- 
after believe  on  him  to  life  everlasting."  "  Lord,  to 
whom  shall  we  go  ?     thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life*." 

'  Now  why  is  this  ?  According  to  the  common  understand- 
ing of  Christians,  it  is  because  the  life  is  in  Christ  as  the 
Vine,  and  is  derived  from  him  to  the  branches,  and  because 
faith  is  the  very  bond  which  so  unites  us  to  him  that  we  can 
draw  life  from  him.  And  this  accords  with  the  represen- 
tations of  Scripture.  "  This  is  the  record,  that  God  hath 
given  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  Ms  Son.  He  that 
hath  the  Sen  hath  life,  and  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  hath 
not  life.  These  things  have  I  written  unto  you  that  believe 
on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  that  ye  may  know  that  ye 
have  eternal  life,  and  that  ye  may  believe  xm  the  name  of 

"  *  John  3.  36.  and  6.  40,  63.  1  Tim.  1.  1G. 


416  APPENDIX, 

the  Son  of  God  "  This  then  was  the  reason  why  faith  in 
Christ  was  urged,  and  why  eternal  life  was  suspended  on  it : 
"  This  life  is  in  his  Son."  Christ  is  the  fountain  of 
eternal  life,  and  faith  is  a  coming  to  him  for  supplies.  '*  Ye 
will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  might  have  life,"  According- 
ly the  life  promised  to  faith  is  received  through  his  name. 
"  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might  have 
life  through  his  name*.'* 

(7.)  It  would  seem  strange  if  Christ  was  appointed  to 
manage  more  than  his  own  inheritance, — if  more  was  com- 
mitted to  him  for  distribution  than  he  received  as  a  re- 
ward,— if  he  gives  gifts  as  a  Mediator  which  as  Mediator  he 
did  not  procure.  I  know  of  no  reason  why  any  blessing 
should  come  down  through  him  as  the  channel  of  con- 
veyance, which  was  not  procured  by  his  own  proper  influ- 
ence. 

Now  he  does  impart  all  the  good  which  the  Church  ever 
receive  in  this  world  or  the  world  to  come.  "  Whatsoever 
ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do."  To  him  is  com- 
mitted the  ministration  of  the  Spirit,  by  which  he  becomes 
the  Prophet  of  the  world,  and  diffuses  all  the  light  which 
illumines  the  minds  of  men.  He  is  "  the  true  Light  that 
lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  "  All 
things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father  ;  and  no  man 
knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man 
the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Sou 
will  reveal  him."  By  the  same  means  he  subdues  and 
sanctifies  the  world.  "  1  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of 
those  things  which  Christ  hath  not  wrought  by  me,  to 
make  the  Gentiles  obedient."  "  Who  by  him  do  believe  in 
God."  "  Unto  every  one  of  us  is  given  grace  according  to 
the  measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ. — That  Ave  henceforth  be 
no  more  children, — but — may  grow  up  into  him  in  all 
things,  which  is  the  Head,  even  Christ ;  from  whom  the 
wThole  body,  fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that 
which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  effectual 
working  in  the  measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of 
the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."  "  Thou  shalt 
call  his  name  Jesus,  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their 
sins,"  "  There  shall  come  out  of  Zion  a  Deliverer,  and 
shall  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob."  By  the  same 
means  he  imparts  streuglh.  "  He  said  unto  me,  my  grace 
is  sufficient  for  thee,  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in 
*  John  5.  40.  and  20.  31.  1  John  5.   11-  1 3. 


APPENDIX.  417 

weakness.  Most  gladly  therefore  will  I  rather  glory  in  my 
infirmities,  that  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me." 
"  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ  which  strengthened 
me."  "  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  By  the  same 
means  he  gives  refreshment.  "  They  drank  of  that  spirit- 
ual rock  which  followed  them,  and  that  rock  was  Christ." 
By  the  same  means  he  imparts  comfort.  "  Our  consola- 
tion— aboundeth  by  Christ."  Not  only  has  he  the  entire 
ministration  of  the  Spirit,  but  he  distributes  the  final  re- 
ward. "  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life."  "To  him  that 
overcometh  will  I  give  to  sit  with  me  in  my  throne,  even  as 
I  also  overcame  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father  in  his 
throne  ;"  his  own  reward  thus  empowering  him  to  reward 
his  disciples.  "  Keep  yourselves  in  the  love  of  God,  look- 
ing for  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto  eternal 
life*." 

(8.)  I  draw  another  argument  from  what  in  Scripture  is 
called  "  the  fulness"  of  Christ,  particularly  from  his  ful- 
ness of  "  grace."  This  fulness  is  spoken  of  in  the  first 
chapter  of  John,  and  again  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  ; 
and  in  both  places  it  is  a  plenitude  of  grace  and  truth. 
The  passage  in  John  is  as  follows  :  "  We  beheld  his  glory, 
the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
and  truth. — And  of  his  fulness  have  all  we  received,  and 
grace  for  grace.  For  the  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but 
grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ."  Let  us  examine 
what  these  two  parts  of  his  fulness  mean. 

[I.]  His  fulness  of  truth.  When  it  is  said  that  truth 
came  by  Christ,  we  are  to  understand,  not  only  that  he  was 
the  reality  of  what  had  been  set  forth  in  the  shadows  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  that  the  whole  revelation  of  God 
was  made  by  him.  By  the  fulness  of  truth  in  him,  we  are 
to  understand  three  things.  First,  that  he  had  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  ;  as  it  is  said  in 
the  very  next  verse,  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time  ;  the  only  begotten  Son  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  he  hath  declared  him."  Secondly,  that  the  whole 
amount  of  truth  belonged  to  him  as  his  own,  and  that  the 
Spirit  of  revelation  was  his  subordinate  Agent.  "  When 
he  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all 


*  Mat.  1.  21.  and  11.  27.  John  1.  9.  and  10.  28.  and  14.  13. 
and  15.  5.  Rom.  11.  26.  and  15.  18.  1  Cor.  10.  4.  2  Cor.  1.  5. 
and  12.  9.  Eph.  4.  7—16.  Phil.  4.  13.  1  Pet.  1.  21.  Jude  21.  Rev. 
3.  21. 


418  APPENDIX. 

truth  ;  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself,  [at  his  own  sug- 
gestion,] but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  that  shall  he  speak. 
— He  shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine  and 
shall  show  it  unto  you.  All  things  that  the  Father  hath 
are  mine  ;  therefore  said  I  that  he  shall  take  of  mine  and 
shall  show  it  unto  you*."  Thirdly,  that  the  revelation 
made  by  him  was  an  ample  disclosure  of  the  secrets  of  the 
Eternal  Mind,  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of  faith  and 
practice,  without  any  supplement  drawn  from  human  rea- 
son. "  He  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh  the  words  of  Gcd, 
for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  himf." 
Hence  to  reach  the  perfection  of  revealed  knowledge,  is  to 
"come — unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of 
Christ %. "  This  idea  is  plainly  illustrated  in  the  passage  in 
Comssians,  as  we  shall  presently  see. 

[2.]  His  fulness  of  grace.  By  grace  is  plainly  meant  all 
besides  truth  that  "  came  by  Jesus  Christ,"  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  law  which  "  was  given  by  Moses."  All 
grace  is  asserted  to  have  come  by  Christ.  If  then  it  is  any 
grace  to  bestow  the  Spirit  and  eternal  life  on  sinners,  these 
also  "  came  by"  him.  If  it  was  not  so,  or  if  any  part  of 
grace  was  not  found  in  him,  how  could  there  be  in  him  a 
fulness  of  grace  ?  and  how  could  we  read  of  "  the  fulness 
of  the  blessing  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ^"  ?  To  talk  of  a 
fulness  from  which  we  all  receive,  when  there  is  nothing  but 
a  sort  of  negative  influence  to  prevent  punishment,  would 
seem  to  be  an  extraordinary  dialect.  Fulness  is  altogether 
a  positive  term,  and  imports  not  barely  enough  to  save  us 
from  the  deepest  poverty  and  ruin,  but  an  abundance  to 
make  us  rich.  \  never  hear  of  the  fulness  of  Christ  with- 
out having  the  idea  awakened  of  unlimited  stores  of  positive 
good  laid  up  in  him  from  which  the  whole  Church  are  sup- 
plied :  and  then  I  can  see  a  glorious  import  in  the  term, — a 
meaning  too  rich  and  vast  to  be  relinquished  till  demonstra- 
tion tears  it  from  me. 

This  fulness  of  grace  consists  of  three  parts.  First,  a 
plenitude  of  pardon,  sufficient  for  sins  however  great  or  nu- 
merous. Secondlv,  a  plenitude  of  the  Spirit,  given  to 
Christ  without  measure  ;  from  which  fulness  we  r«  <  eive 
"grace  for  grace,"  and  are  "strengthened  with  might" 
"according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory||."  Thirdly,  a  pleni- 
tude of  inheritance.  The  fulness  is  particularly  marked  as 
being  that  of  "  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,"  who  gives 

*  John  16.  13—1.-. 1  John  3.  31. %  EPh-  4-  13- 1  Rom- 

IS.  29. (|  £j>h.  3.  16. 


APPENDIX.  419 

to  all  that  receive  him,  "  power  to  become  the  sons  of 
God*,"  in  other  words,  "joint  heirs"  with  him  to  "the 
riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inheritance!. " 

All  these  ideas  are  plainly  comprehended  in  the  fulness 
mentioned  in  Colossians.  To  that  passage  let  us  now  di- 
rect our  attention.  "  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through 
his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  who  is  the  image 
of  the  invisible  God,  [by  whom  he  is  revealed,]  the  First- 
born of  every  creature,  [the  Heir  of  all  things,] — the  Head 
of  the  body,  the  Church,  [the  fountain  of  influence  ;  "  the 
Head,"  as  it  is  said  in  the  same  passage,  "  from  which  all 
the  body,  by  joints  and  bands  having  nourishment  minister- 
ed and  knit  together,  increaseth  with  the  increase  of  God,"] 
— the  First-born  from  the  dead,  [who  not  only  rose  first, 
but  rose  to  inherit  as  the  eldest  Son,]  that  in  all  things  he 
might  have  the  pre-eminence.  For  it  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  hhn  should  all  fulness  dwell: — whom  we  preach, 
warning  every  man,  and  teaching  every  man  in  all  wisdom, 
that  we  may  present  every  man  perfect  in  Christ  Jesus, 
[perfect  in  knowledge,  holiness,  and  justification  ;] — that 
their  hearts  might  be  comforted,  being  knit  together  in 
love,  and  unto  all  riches  of  the  full  assurance  of  understand- 
ing", to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  mystery  of  God — and 
of  Christ,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom 
and  knowledge,  [the  fulness  of  truth,  competent  to  furnish 
a  complete  revelation.]  And  this  I  say  lest  any  man  should 
beguile  you  with  enticing  words. — Beware  lest  any  man 
spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tra- 
dition of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not 
after  Christ  ;  for  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily  ;  [knowledge  is  a  part  of  "  the  fulness  of 
Gcl| :"]  and  ye  are  complete  in  him  ;  [so  far  as  instruc- 
tion is  concerned,  ye  have  need  of  nothing  more  than  "  the 
fulness — of  the  Gospel  of  Christ."  But  this  is  not  all  :  for 
as  wisdom,  love,  and  power,  the  sum  of  the  divine  perfec- 
tions, go  in  to  constitute  "  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodi- 
ly," ye  are  complete  in  Christ  not  only  in  point  of  instruc- 
tion, but  in  regard  to  his  influence  as  King,  Heir,  Sanctifi- 
er,  and  Deliverer  from  the  bondage  both  of  Jewish  ordinan- 
ces and  cf  t'atan.  Ye  are  complete  in  him,]  which  is  the  Head 
of  all  principality  and  power ;  in  whom  also  ye  are  cir- 
cumcis'..  with  the  circumcision  made  ivithout  hands. — 
You — fiaih  he  quickened, — having  forgiven  you  all  tres- 

*  .John  1.  12—14. f  Eph.  1.  18. +  Eph.  3.  19. 


420  APPENDIX. 

passes,  blotting  out  the  hand-writing  of  ordinances  that 
was  against  us  ; — and  having'  spoiled  principalities  and 
powers,  he  made  a  show  of  them  openly*."  These  are 
"  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,"  and  "  the  exceeding 
riches  of — grace — through"  himf  :  and  they  all  go  in  to 
constitute  that  fulness  of  grace  and  truth  which  is  found  in 
him. 

Having  suggested  these  considerations,  I  now  proceed  to 
arguments  of  a  more  decisive  cast. 

I.  That  which  is  our  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  God 
is  no  other  than  the  righteousness  of  Christ*,  and  is  said  to 
be  in  €hrist§,  to  be  of  Christjj,  to  be  by  the  faith  of 
Christ^,  ana"  is  called  the  righteousness  of  God,  because 
appointed  by  him**.  The  term  is  obviously  taken  from 
the  first  covenant,  as  appears  by  the  frequent  comparison 
between  a  legal  righteousness  and  this.  *4  Moses  descnbeth 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  that  the  man  which 
doth  those  things  shall  live  by  them  :  but  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  faith  sptaketh  on  this  wise."  "  If  righteous- 
ness come  by  the  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain."  "  If 
there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could  have  given  life,  ve- 
rily righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  law."  "  That 
I  may  win  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him*  not  having  my  own 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through 
the  faith  of  Christff."  Now  what  ought  to  be  the  influ- 
ence of  a  righteousness  which  thus  plainly  comes  in  the 
room  of  a  legal  one  and  takes  its  name  ?  Under  the  first 
covenant,  a  righteousness  both  protected  the  subject  from 
punishment  and  entitled  hira  to  positive  good.  If  then 
"  the  Lord  our  righteousness"  does  only  the  former  and 
not  the  latter,  he  is  but  half  what  a  righteousness  was  un- 
der the  first  covenant,  (leaving  the  rest  to  be  supplied  by 
our  own  works,)  and  the  very  term  in  the  Gospel  is  sunk 
down  to  one  half  of  its  original  meaning.  But  who  told  us 
that  the  word  is  thus  changed  ?  If  you  use  a  term  to-day 
which  I  know  had  a  definite  meaning  yesterday,  I  am  bound 
to  understand  it  in  the  same  sense,  unless  you  plainly  tell 
me  that  its  import  is  altered.  Where  has  God  told  us  that 
righteousness  under  the  Gospel  met»ns  but  half  what  it  did 
under  the  law?  On  the  contrary,  the  very  nature  of  the 
word  precludes  the  possibility  of  such  a  change.     Kighte- 

*  Col.  1.  Sc  2. 1  Eph.  2.  7.  &  3.  8. 1  Jer.  23.  6.  &  33.  16. 

$  Isai.  45.  24. 1|  lsai     54.    17.   &  61.    10. TT   Rom.   3.  22. 

**  Rom.  1.   17.  &  3.  21,  22.  &    10.  3.    2  Cor.  5.  21.    Phil.  3.  9. 

It  Rom.  10.  5,  6.  Gal.  2. 21.  &  3.  21.  Phil.  3.  3,  9. 


APPENDIX.  42 i 

ousness  is  a  term  altogether  of  a  positive  import.  It  im- 
plies more  than  a  title  to  be  exempted  from  an  ignominious 
death  :  it  imports  the  claim  of  one  who  is  right :  who  not 
only  has  not  transgressed,  but  has  done  all  that  was  required. 
A  righteous  man  is  something  more  than  a  man  who  is  not 
a  malefactor.  To  say  of  one  that  he  does  not  deserve  to  be 
executed,  would  be  a  poor  compliment  to  a  righteous  per- 
son. We  do  not  talk  of  the  righteousness  of  a  culprit  just 
released  from  the  state-prison,  because  the  law  has  no 
longer  a  penal  demand  against  him.  And  the  term  has  a 
meaning  no  less  positive  in  the  New-Testament.  "  They 
being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and  going  about  to 
establish  their  own  righteousness,  [certainly  something- 
more  than  avoiding  crimes  and  escaping  punishment,]  have 
not  submitted  themselves  unto  the  righteousness  of  God*." 
Self-righteousness  always  means,  as  it  does  in  this  place,  a 
pretended  claim,  not  so  much  to  pardon,  as  to  a  reward. 
We  read  of  "  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God 
imputeth  righteousness  icithout  worksf."  But  why  with- 
out works  ?  What  have  good  works  to  do  with  pardon  ? 
This  is  only  not  to  impute  bad  works.  "  Christ  is  the  end 
of  the  law  for  righteousnesst :"  but  is  the  law  nothing  but 
a  penalty  ?  and  is  its  whole  end  answered,  so  as  to  make  out 
a  righteousness,  without  fulfilling  the  precept  ?  Thus  we 
see  that  the  term  in  the  New-Testament  has  not  lost  its 
original  meaning.  If  then  Christ  is  our  righteousness,  he 
must  do  more  than  save  us  from  the  death  of  a  malefactor, 
he  must  be  the  ground  of  all  the  treatment  which  belongs 
to  the  righteous.  If  his  righteousness  has  the  same  influ- 
ence, and  answers  the  same  end  in  the  government  of  God, 
that  the  perfect  righteousness  of  men  would  have  done  ;  or 
if  the  common  expression  is  true,  that  believers  are  treated 
as  righteous  on  his  account ;  then  he  is  certainly  the  ground 
of  their  title  to  life.  To  talk  of  their  being  treated  as 
righteous  on  his  account,  and  to  deny  that  they  receive 
eternal  life  for  his  sake,  is  to  say  that  a  personal  right- 
eousness would  not  have  entitled  them  to  the  rewards  of 
heaven. 

But  there  is  no  need  of  further  reasoning ;  it  is  a  plain 
matter  of  fact,  spread  obviously  to  view  on  the  sacred  page, 
that  the  same  righteousness  that  procures  pardon  entitles  to 
eternal  life.  "  Moses  describ&th  the  righteousness  which 
is  of  the  law,   that  the  man  which  doth  those  things  shall 

*Rom.  10.3. 1  Rom.  4.  6. iRom.  10.  1 

2  N 


422  APPENDIX. 

live  by  them  :  but  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith 
speaketh  on  this  wise, — that  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy 
mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved : 
for  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness,  and 
with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation."  "If 
there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could  have  given  life,  ve- 
rily righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  law,  [to  wit, 
that  righteousness  which  now  gives  life  J] — We  through 
the  Spirit  wait  for  the  hope  of  righteousness  by  faith." 
"  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteous- 
ness." Noah  "  became  heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is 
by  faith."  Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was  counted  un- 
to him  for  righteousness.  Now  to  him  that  worketh  is  the 
reward  not  reckoned  of  grace  but  of  debt ;  but  to  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  un- 
godly, his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness. — The  promise 
that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abra- 
ham or  his  seed  through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.  For  if  they  which  are  of  the  law  be  heirs, 
faith  is  made  void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect." 
"  If  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one,  much  more 
they  which  receive  abundant  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of 
righteousness,  shall  reign  in  life  by  One,  Jesus  Christ. 
Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  One 
the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life. 
For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  One  shall  many  be  made  righteous. 
— That  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  even  so  might  grace 
reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  by  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord*." 

As  righteousness  signifies  merely  that  which  entitles 
to  justification,  this  argument  will  really  be  carried  for- 
ward in  a  new  form  under  the  following  head. 

II.  Justification  in  its  whole  extent  is  allowed  to  be  ground- 
ed on  Christf  :  but  though  the  term  is  sometimes  used  with 
I  reference  to  pardon*,  in  its  larger  and  more  common 
sense  it  comprehends  a  title  to  eternal  life.  Some  of  the 
passages  just  quoted  plainly  show  this,  particularly  that  in 
which  the  contrast  between  the  first  and  second  Adam  is 

•  Row.  4.  3,  4.  13,  14.  and  5.  17—21.  anil  10.  5,  6,  9,  10.     Gal.  3. 

21.  and  5.  6.     2  Tim.  4.  8.     Heb.  11.  7. 1  Isai.  45.  24,  25.  and  53. 

|1.  Rom.  3.  20—28.  and  4.  25.  and  5.  1,  9.    1  Cor.  C  11,    Tit.  3.  6,  7- 
T  Acts  13.  39.     Rom.  5.  9. 


APPENDIX.  423 

drawn.  So  do  all  those  which  assert  that  justification  is  not 
by  works.  Pardon  not  by  works  !  what  has  pardon  to  do 
with  works  ?  The  mention  of  works  suggests  no  ether  idea 
than  that  of  reward.  James  of  course  uses  the  term  in  the 
larger  sense,  when,  to  prove  that  a  justifying-  faith  is  opera- 
tive, he  asserts  that  we  are  justified  by  works  and  not  by 
faith  only*.  In  the  following  passages  also  the  word  obvi- 
ously means  the  same.  "  Not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are 
just  before  God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified." 
"  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect  r  it 
is  God  that  justifieth.  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  it  is 
Christ  that  died,  yea  rather  that  is  risen  again.''''  "  Who 
was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was  raised  again,  [by 
way  of  recompense,]  for  our  justification  ;  [we  sharing  in 
his  reward,  according  to  the  principle,  "  Because  I  live  ye 
shall  live  also."]  Therefore  being  justified  by  faith,  we 
have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  by 
whom  also  we  have  access  by  faith  into  this  grace  wherein 
we  stand,  and  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God. — 
For  if  when  we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by 
the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more  being  reconciled  ice  shall 
be  saved  by  his  life."  "  The  Scripture,  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  be- 
fore the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed.  So  then  they  which  be  of  faith  arc 
blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,  [receive  ail  the  blessings 
promised  to  faith,  which  are  manifestly  included  in  that 
justification  wThich  the  Scripture  foresaw.] — That  no  man 
is  justified  by  the  law  in  the  sight  of  God,  is  evident,  for, 
The  just  shall  live  by  faith.  And  the  law  is  not  of  faith, 
but,  The  man  that  doth  them  shall  live  in  them.  Christ 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, — that  the  bless~ 
ing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus 
Christ,  that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit 
through  faith.— -If  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law  it  is  no 
more  of  promise,  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promise. 
: — Is  the  law  then  against  the  promises  of  God  ?  God  forbid  : 
for  if  there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could  have  given 
life,  verily  righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  law. — 
The  law  was  our  school-master  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that 
we  might  be  justified  by  faith. — Ye  are  all  the  children, 
[and  of  course  heirs,]  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus. — 
And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the    promise."     "  That  being  justified 

*  James  2.  14—26, 


424  APPENDIX. 

by  his  grace,  we  should  be  made  heirs  according  to  the 
hope  of  eternal  life.**3 

If  justification  is  an  act  or  sentence  declaring-  the  subject 
entitled  to  all  the  good  promised  to  faith,  then  it  confers  a 
title  to  eternal  life  as  well  as  to  pardon  ;  for  we  have  seen 
that  both  are  unchangeably  promised  to  the  first  act  of  faith 
in  distinction  from  all  subsequent  works.  And  why  should 
not  both  titles  be  embraced  under  the  general  name  of  justi- 
fication ?  Ought  there  not  to  be  a  word  to  express  the 
whole  amount  of  these  new  claims  ?  Why  should  an  essen- 
tial part  be  left  without  a  name  ?  And  is  not  justification  a 
proper  word  for  that  purpose  ?  Why  is  it  not  ?  What  was 
its  original  meaning  under  the  first  covenant  from  which  it 
is  manifestly  taken  ?  It  there  denoted  a  title  to  life  as  well 
as  an  acquittal  from  blame.  And  why  should  it  not  mean 
the  same  under  the  new  covenant  ?  What  has  operated  to 
change  its  import  ?  The  principal  force  of  the  word  still 
is  and  always  must  be  positive.  To  justify  a  man,  plainly 
signifies  to  invest  him  with  a  claim  to  be  treated  as  just, 
and  of  course  to  entitle  him  to  all  the  rewards  of  well  doing. 
Under  the  law  it  would  have  given  him  a  claim  to  the  eter- 
nal life  engaged  to  obedience ;  under  the  Gcspel  it  ought  to 
entitle  him  to  the  whole  amount  of  blessedness  promised  to 
faith.  Why  should  not  justification  by  faith  secure  all  that 
faith  claims  by  covenant  ?  If  the  promise  does  not  deceive, 
the  moment  a  man  believes,  he  becomes  entitled  to  eternal 
life  as  well  as  to  pardon.  All  that  good  is  instantly  con- 
ferred on  faith  by  the  act  or  sentence  of  God.  If  that  act 
or  sentence  is  called  justification,  (and  why  should  it  not 
be  ?)  the  question  is  decided. 

Further,  justification  in  the  larger  sense  is  expressly 
grounded  on  Christ's  obedience.  "  As  by  one  man's  diso- 
bedience many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of 
One  shall  many  be  made  righteous :"  or  as  it  is  expressed 
in  the  preceding  verse,  "  so  by  the  righteousness  of  One  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life :"  or 
as  it  is  in  the  verse  still  preceding,  "  much  more  they 
which  receive  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  right- 
eousness, shall  reign  in  life  by  One,  Jesus  Christf." 

III.  Eternal  life  is  declared  in  the  plainest  terms  to  be 
in,  by,  and  through  Christ.  "That  they  may  also  obtain 
the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  with  eternal  glory." 
"  For   God  hath  not  appointed   us  to  wrath,  but  to  obtain 

m  U.  19.     Rom.  2.*  13.  and  4.  25.  and  5.  1,  2,  10.  and  8.  38, 
34.     Gal.  3.  S— 29.     Tit.  3.  7. 1  Rom.  5.  17—1°. 


APPENDIX.  425 

salvation  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;  who  died  for  us,  that 
whether  we  wake  or  sleep  we  should  live  together  with 
him."  "The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord/'  "  Unto  him  that — washed  us  from  our 
sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and 
priests  unto  God  and  his  Father, — be  glory."  "  God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  ; — whereunto 
he  called  you  by  our  Gospel,  to  the  obtaining  of  the  glory 
of  qux  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "  If  in  this  life  only  we  have 
hope  in  Christ,  we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable."  "  The 
riches  of  the  glory  of  this  mystery, — which  is  Christ  in 
you  the  hope  of  glory.'''  "  God  sent  his  only  begotten  Sen 
into  the  world  that  we  might  live  through  him.."1  (i  Which 
is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance  until  the  redemption  of  the 
purchased  possession."  "  Who  of  God  is  made  unto 
us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctincation,  and  re- 
demption." lt  The  bread  of  God  is  he  which — giveth  life 
unto  the  world. — I  am  that  bread  of  life. — If  any  man  eat 
of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for  ever. — As  the  living  Father 
hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  [that  life  does  not 
mean  preservation  from  hell,]  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he 
shall  live  by  me.1'  "  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto 
me  and  drink."  "  I  will  give  unto  him  that  is  athirst  of 
the  fountain  of  the  water  of  life."  "lam  the  way,  and 
the  truth,  and  the  life."  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the 
life."  6*  When  Christ  who  is  our  life  shall  appear,  then 
shall  ye  also  appear  with  him  in  glory."  "  That  which  was 
from  the  beginning, — -which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes, 
■ — and  our  hands  have  handled  of  the  Word  of  life  :  for  the 
Life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness, 
and  show  unto  you  that  Eternal  Life  which  was  with  the 
Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us."  "  We  are  in  him 
that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true 
God  and  Eternal  Life*." 

IV.  We  are  directed  to  ask  for  all  things,  and  to  render 
thanks  for  all  things,  in  the  name  of  Christ.  *«  Whatsoever 
ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do. — If  ye  shall  ask 
any  thing  in  my  name,  I  will  do  it."  "I  have  chosen 
you, — that  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  of  the  Father  in 
my  name,  he  may  give  it  you."  "  Whatsoever  ye 
shall  ask  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it  you. 

*  John  6.  33,  48,  51,  57.  and  7.  37.  and  11.  25.  and  14.  6.  Rom. 
6.  23.  1  Cor.  1.  30.  and  15.  19.  Eph.  1.  14.  Col.  1.  27.  and  3.  4. 
1  Thes.  5.  9,  10.  2  Thes.  2.  13—17.  2  Tjra.  2.  10.  1  John  1,  1,  2. 
and  4.  9.  and  5.  20.     Rev.  1.  5,  6.  and  21.  6. 

2  N  2 


426  APPENDIX* 

Hitherto  ye  have  asked  nothing-  in  my  name  ;  [because  h<? 
had  not  yet  finished  the  work  which  was  to  constitute  his 
claim  ;]  ask  and  ye  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  be 
full.— At  that  day,  [after  my  title  is  completed,]  ye  shall 
ask  in  my  name*.  "  Whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed, 
do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  [by,  or  from  respect 
to,  his  authority,]  giving  thanks  to  God  and  the  Father  by 
him."  "  Giving  thanks  always  for  all  things  unto  God 
and  the  Father  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
"I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus  Christ  for  you  all."  "  I 
thank  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Unto  him  be 
glory  in  the  Church  by  Christ  Jesus  throughout  all  ages, 
world  without  endf." 

To  ask  in  the  name  of  Christ,  can  mean  nothing  less  than 
to  pray  that  blessings  may  be  granted  for  his  sake,  or  out 
of  respect  to  his  merit.  To  give  thanks  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  is  to  thank  God  for  blessings  received  on  his  ac- 
count. To  give  thanks  by  or  through  Christ,  is  to  deliver 
our  tribute  into  his  hands  to  be  presented  to  the  Father,  as 
the  ancient  priests  used  to  present  the  thank-offerings  and 
other  gifts  and  sacrifices  of  the  people. 

To  escape  the  point  blank  force  of  these  texts,  it  has 
been  said,  that  in  asking  for  positive  blessings  in  the  name 
of  Christ,  we  are  conscious  that  our  guilt  stands  in  the  way 
of  our  receiving,  and  our  meaning  is,  that  we  may  be  par- 
doned for  his  sake,  that  so  the  mercies  may  come  directly 
to  us  without  his  further  influence.  Now  this  after  all 
would  be  asking  nothing  in  his  name  but  pardon,  and  the 
command  as  well  as  our  prayers  would  hold  out  a  false  ap- 
pearance. Had  we  been  directed  to  recognise  over  our  food 
and  in  all  our  petitions  our  need  of  pardon  through  Christ, 
that  we  could  have  understood  :  but  expressly  to  tell  us  to 
ask  ail  things  in  his  name,  in  the  same  unlimited  manner  in 
which  we  are  directed  to  ask  pardon  in  his  name,  and  to 
mean  only  the  latter,  would  certainly  seem  to  be  an  extra- 
ordinary mode  of  directing  ignorant  creatures. 

V.  The  most  decisive  as  well  as  complicated  argument  I 
have  reserved  for  the  last.  The  Son  of  God,  in  reward  of 
his  filial  obedience,  was  constituted  "  Heir  of  all  things," 
and  received  an  inheritance  which  comprehended  all  the 
blessings  which  ever  come  to  us. 

To  exhibit  a  connected  view  of  this  interesting  subject, 
it  is  necessary  to  go  back  to  the  essential  ideas  of  sonship. 

*  John  14.  13,  14.  and  15.  16.  and  16.  23,  24,  26. 1  Rom.  1.  B. 

and  7.  25.     Eph.  3.  21.  and  5.  20.     Col.  3. 17. 


APPENDIX.  427 

Wherever  the  relation,  character,  and  circumstances  of  a 
father  and  son  are  perfect,  there  are  three  ideas  essentially 
involved  in  sonship  ;  generation,  filial  obedience,  and  inhe- 
ritance. If  the  last  two  are  united  without  the  first,  as  in 
the  case  of  adoption,  the  relation  is  imperfect.  If  the  first 
and  last  exist  without  the  second,  the  character  of  the  son 
is  defective.  If  the  first  two  are  found  without  the  last,  the 
circumstances  or  character  of  the  father  is  not  good, 
These  three  parts  go  in  to  constitute  the  sonship  of  Christ ; 
and  in  reference  to  every  one  of  them  he  is  apparently  said 
to  have  been  begotten.  The  first  is  beyond  dispute*.  In 
respect  to  the  second,  as  obedience  was  a  vital  part  of  the 
character  of  the  Priest,  and  as  his  ordination  to  that  office  was 
really  an  appointment  to  a  course  of  filial  obedience,  or  an 
introduction  to  the  character  and  conduct  of  a  Son,  that 
ordination  is  apparently  called  his  generation.  "  No  man 
taketh  this  honour  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of 
God  as  was  Aaron.  So  also  Christ  glorified  not  himself  to 
be  made  a  High  Priest,  but,  \he  that  ordained  him  to  that 
office,  you  would  expect  to  hear  :  the  same  thing  is  express- 
ed in  other  words  :  but]  he  that  said  unto  him,  Thou  art 
my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  :  as  he  saith  also  in 
another  place,  Thou  art  a  Priest  for  ever  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedecf ."  Accordingly  when  he  was  publicly  in- 
ducted into  the  priestly  office  by  baptism  and  anointing;, 
(agreeably  to  the  Mosaic  forms,)  at  the  moment  of  receiv- 
ing the  divine  unction  which  constituted  him  a  Priest,  he 
was  named  from  heaven  the  Son  of  God,  beloved  because 
obedient^.  The  very  name  involved  the  idea  of  obedience. 
"  Though  he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the 
things  which  he  suffered^."  As  if  it  had  been  said,  Though 
he  was  one  whose  very  nature  it  was  to  obey,  yet  he  was 
perfected  in  that  virtue  by  the  things  which  he  suffered. 
As  to  the  third,  there  needs  nothing  more  to  support  it 
than  a  single  sentence  in  Paul's  sermon  at  Antioch  in  Pisi- 
dia  :  "  The  promise  which  was  made  unto  the  fathers,  God 
hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us  their  children  in  that  he 
hath  raised  up  Jesus  again :  as  it  is  written  in  the  Second 
Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee\\." 
If  we  turn  back  to  the  Second  Psalm,  we  shall  find  these 
words  to  be  the  public  acknowledgment  which  God  made 
over  the  sepulchre,  when  he  raised  the  sleeping  Saviour  to 

*  Luke  1.  35. 1  Heb,  5.  4—6, ±Mat.  3.  17 iHeb.  5.  8. 

— fl  Acts  13,  32,  33. 


428  APPENDIX. 

the  possession  and  honours  of  a  Son,  and  set  him  King 
upon  the  holy  hill  of  Zion,  and  gave  him  the  heathen  for  his 
inheritance.  This  reason  for  the  appellation  of  Son,  and 
for  the  expression  in  the  Second  Psalm,  is  again  recognised 
by  the  same  apostle  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  :  "  Be- 
ing* made  so  much  better  than  the  angels  as  he  hath  by  in- 
heritance obtained  a  more  excellent  name  than  they  : 
for  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art 
my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee*  ?"  Here  he  is  ex- 
pressly said  to  have  "  obtained"  the  "  name"  of  the  "  Son" 
of  God  "by"  the  "inheritance"  which  he  received.  And 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  it  is  affirmed,  that  he  was 
exalted  to  this  name  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  :  "  He 
humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross  :  wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  aNAME  which  is  above  every  name\  ;" 
to  wit,  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  same  reason 
for  the  appellation  is  suggested  by  Gabriel  in  his  message 
to  Mary  :  "He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  the  Highest,  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him 
the  throne  of  his  father  David%.',y  Accordingly  when  his 
glorified  state  was  set  forth  on  mount  Tabor,  where  God  had 
decked  him  in  the  robes  prepared  for  the  "  Heir  of  all 
things,"  the  voice  from  heaven  again  pronounced,  "This 
is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased§."  And  one 
of  the  witnesses  tells  us,  "  We  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory 
of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father\\."  It  is  because  his 
obedience  "unto  death"  entitled  him  to  the  portion  of  a 
Son,  and  because  he  arose  to  possess  the  inheritance,  that 
the  grave  is  represented  as  the  womb  in  which  he  was  con- 
ceived, and  his  resurrection  as  the  completion  of  his  genera- 
tion. He  is  called  "the  First-born  from  thedead,"  and  "  the 
First-begotten  of  the  dead,"  and  is  said  to  have  been  "  de- 
clared the  Son  of  God  with  power — by  the  resurrection^]"."  It 
is  by  a  continuance  of  the  same  figure  that  the  "joint  heirs," 
who  inherit  in  consequence  of  his  having  risen  to  the  estate 
of  a  Son,  are  said  to  have  been  "  begotten — again  unto  a 
lively  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
dead,  to  an  inheritance  incorruptible  and  undeliled**."  The 
same  form  of  speech  is  used  whenever  the  adoption  of  be- 
lievers is  spoken  of,  or  whenever  they  are  called  the  sons 

*  Heb.  1.  4,  5. tPhil.  2.8,  9. tLuke  I.  32. $  Mat.  17.  5. 

John  1.  14.      Compared  with  2  Pet.  1.   16—18. H   Kom.  1. 

4.     Col.  1.  18.     Rev.  1.  5. **  1  Pet.  1.  3,  4. 


APPENDIX.  429 

of  God.  These  terms,  (though  the  latter  refers  also  to  their 
new  generation  and  filial  spirit,)  always  allude  to  their  in- 
heritance. 

This  inheritance  was  conferred  on  the  Mediator  as  the 
reward  of  that  amazing1  exhibition  of  holiness  which  he 
made  under  law,  in  other  words,  for  his  obedience  "  unto 
death."  "Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I 
lay  down  my  life  that  I  may  take  it  again, This  com- 
mandment have  I  received  of  my  Father."  "  He — became 
obedient  unto  death  : — wherefore  God  also  hath  highly 
exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name."  In  that  remarkable  description  of  the  inheritance 
of  the  ';  Son"  and  "  Heir  of  all  things,"  which  is  contain- 
ed in  the  first  three  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  ground  of  the  whole  is  stated  in  these  emphatic  words  : 
"  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity  ;  there- 
fore God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of 
gladness  above  thy  fellows.'''  And  it  is  added,  "  Consider 
the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  profession,  Christ 
Jesus,  who  was  faithful  to  him  that  appointed  him,  as  also 
Moses  was  faithful  in  all  his  house.  For  this  man  was 
counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Moses.— Moses  verily 
was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a  servant, — but  Christ  as  a 
Son  over  his  own  house*.'"  Indeed  the  very  name  of  in- 
heritance denotes  the  estate  to  be  the  reward  of  his  filial 
obedience.  He  received  nothing  by  birth,  but  by  merit. 
And  what  he  received  by  merit  and  not  by  birth,  was  called 
the  portion  of  a  Son,  not  so  much  in  reference  to  his  gene- 
ration, as  to  his  filial  obedience.  In  that  filial  character, 
and  in  the  reward  which  followed,  and  which  hence  took 
the  name  of  inheritance,  lie  two  parts  out  of  three  of  the 
whole  meaning  of  Son  of  God. 

What  then  was  his  inheritance  ?  I  will  first  premise  that 
it  comprehended  every  thing  which  he  received  by  way  of 
reward.  Whatever  was  bestowed  as  the  recompense  of  his 
obedience,  was  granted  for  his  fi Hal  obedience,  for  only  as 
a  Son  was  he  bound  to  obey.  And  whatever  was  granted 
for  his  filial  obedience,  was  the  portion  of  a  Sim,  or  his 
inheritance.  If  any  inheritance  was  conferred  for  his  filial 
obedience,  why  should  it  not  comprise  every  thing  which 
he  received  in  that  way  ?  Why  should  half  of  his  reward 
take  this  name  and  not  the  whole  ?     Let  it  not  then  be 

*  John  10.  17,  13,     Phil.  2.  8,  9.     Heb,  1.  9.  and    3. 1—6. 


430  APPENDIX. 

thought  that  any   part   of  his  possession  or  power,   (the 
whole  of  which  was  conferred  as  a  reward,)  belongs  to  him 
as  a  mere  distributing  Agent,  and  not  as  the  "  Heir  of  all 
things ;"  that  any  part  of  what  he  governs  and  gives  re- 
mains undetached  from  Godhead,  ungranted  to  the  Media- 
tor, and  passes  through  him  as  the  mere  channel  of  convey- 
ance.     It  is  all  his  own  inheritance,  his  own   "  purchased 
possession."     His  dominion  itself  is  only  the  appendage  of 
heirship  :  for  it  belongs  to  the  heir  when  he  comes  of  age 
to  manage  his  own   estate,   to   press   every  thing  which  he 
lawfully  may  into  subserviency  to  it,  and  to  give  it  to  whom- 
soever he  pleases.     It  was  "  by"  the  "  inheritance"  solely, 
and  not  by  any  dominion  distinct  from  this,  that  in  point  of 
outward  state  he  was  made   "  better  than  the  angels,"  and 
"obtained  a  more  excellent  name   than  they*."     It  was 
only  as  "the    First-begotten,"  or  "Heir  of  all  things," 
that  he  was  exalted  to  receive  the  worship  of  augelsf.     It 
was  only  as  "the   First-born  from  the  dead,"  "  the  First- 
born of  every  creature,"  that  in  point  of  outv/ard  glory  he 
had  "  in  all  things — the  pre-eminence;*;."     In  short  he  re- 
ceived nothing  into  his  hands  but  what  he  inherited  as  the 
"  Heir."    We  may  therefore  unhesitatingly  conclude  that  his 
whole  reward  went  into  the  inheritance,  and  remains  his  own 
property,  detached  from  pure  Godhead,  held  by  a  mediato- 
rial claim,  and  placed  in  a  new  relation  to  this  world.     Ac- 
cordingly we  shall  tind  the  different  parts  of  it  interchange- 
ably spoken  of  as  an  inheritance  and  as  a  reward. 

Let  us  now  see  what  that  inheritance  contains.  It  com- 
prehends all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  over  whom,  as  an  ap- 
pendage of  heirship,  he  exercises  dominion  both  to  save  and 
to  destroy.  "  Why  do  the  heathen  rage  and  the  people 
imagine  a  vain  thing  ?  The  kings  of  the  earth  set  them- 
selves, and  the  rulers  take  counsel  together  against  the  Lord 
and  against  his  Anointed  ;  [alluding,  as  we  are  expressly 
told,  to  the  combination  of  Pilate,  and  Herod,  and  the  rulers 
and  people  of  Israel,  and  the  Roman  soldiers,  against 
Christ§.J — Yet  have  I  set  my  King  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zi- 
on.  I  will  declare  the  decree  :  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  me, 
Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ;  [referring, 
as  the  Holy  Ghost  declares,  to  his  resurrection|j.]  Ask  of 
me  and  I  shall  give  thee,  [manifestly  by  way  of  reward,] 
the   heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost 


*  Heb.  1.  4. f  Heb.  1.  6.  with  ver.  2. %  Col.  1.  15—18. 

Acts  4.  25—27. J]  Acts  13.  33. 


APPENDIX.  4:31 

parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession.  Thou  shalt  break 
them  with  a  rod  of  iron  ;  thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces 
like  a  potter's  vessel. — Kiss  the  Son,  [the  Heir,']  lest  he  be 
angry,  and  ye  perish  from  the  way  when  his  wrath  is  kin- 
dled but  a  little.  Blessed  are  all  they  that  put  their  trust 
in  him*." 

The  inheritance  includes  all  worlds  and  things  through  the 
universe,  over  which,  as  lawful  Owner,  he   is   appointed  to 
rule.     "  God— hath   in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by 
his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  Heir  of  all  things  : — who, 
— when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty   on  high  ;  being  made  so 
much  better  than  the  angels  as  he  hath  by  inheritance  ob- 
tained a  more   excellent  name   than  they  :  for  unto  which 
of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee  ?  and  again,   I  will  be  to  him  a 
Father,,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son  ?    And  again,  when 
he  bringeth  in  the  First-begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith, 
And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him. — Unto  the  Son, 
[the  Heir,]  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and 
ever. — Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity  ; 
therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the 
oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows. — But  to  which  of  the  an- 
gels said  he  at  any  time,  Sit  on  my  right  hand  until  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool  ? — For  unto  the  angels  hath  he 
not  put  in  subjection  the  world  to  come  whereof  we  speak  : 
but  one  in  a  certain  place    testified,  saying,  What  is  man 
that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ? — Thou  madest  him  a  little 
lower  than  the  angels  ;  thou  crownedst  him  with  glory  and 
honour,  and  didst  set  him  over  the  works   of  thy  hands. 
Thou   hast  put  all  things  in  subjection  under  his  feet.  For 
in  that  he  put  all  in  subjection  under  him,  he  left  nothing 
that  is  not  put  under  him,  [nothing  but  God  himself,  as  it 
is  said   in  another   place-j*.]     But  now  we   see  not  yet  all 
things  put  under  him  :  but  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a 
little   lower   than   the   angels   for   the   suffering  of  death, 
crowned  with  glory  and  honour*."      '•  He — became  obedi- 
ent unto  death  :— wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  -which  is  above  every  name  ; 
that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ; 
and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father}|."     "  Jesus  knowing 

*  Ps.  2.  1—12. 1  1  Cor,  15.  24—23. — -t  Keb.  1.  and  2. 

||  Phil.  2.  6—11, 


432  APPENDIX. 

that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  his  hands,"  said 
after  his  resurrection,  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  in  earth."  And  not  to  him  as  a  mere  distri- 
buting Agent,  but  for  his  Ovvn.  "  All  things  that  the  Fa- 
ther hath  are  mine*."  Indeed  all  things  were  expressly 
made  "for  him,"  as  "  the  First-born  of  every  creature/' 
"  the  First-born  from  the  dead,"  the  "  Heir  of  all 
thingsf." 

In  other  places  ail  worlds  and  things  are  represented  as 
given  him  for  a  reward.  "  For  the  joy  that  was  set  before 
him"  he  "  endured  the  cross,  despising  the  shame,  and 
is  set  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God.'''' 
"  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and  revived, 
that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  living."  I 
will  "  divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great,  and  he  shall  di- 
vide the  spoil  with  the  strong,  because  he  hath  poured  out 
his  soul  unto  death}." 

This  is  a  general  view  of  the  inheritance.  Before  I  de- 
scend to  those  particulars  which  will  bear  more  directly  on 
the  subject,  I  will  remark  here,  that  he  received  this  general 
inheritance  for  the  use  of  the  Church  and  the  world.  There 
was  a  special  reference  to  the  elect.  If  he  received  "  power 
over  ail  flesh,"  a  leading  object  was,  "  that  he  should  give 
eternal  life  to  as  many  as"  God  had  "  given  him."  If  he 
was  "exalted,"  a  principal  end  was,  that  he  might  "  be  a 
Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel  and  for- 
giveness of  sii)s§."  Did  he  obtain  the  Spirit  ?  it  was  in- 
deed to  call  the  race  at  large,  and  to  sanctity  and  comfort 
all  who  would  believe  ;  but  it  was  also  to  regenerate  his 
chosen.  Did  he  obtain  dominion  over  angels  ?  if  it  was 
that  they  might  be  "  ministering  spirits"  to  a  world  of  mo- 
ral agents,  it  was  in  a  special  sense  that  they  might  "  min- 
ister for  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation||."  When  I 
say  that  he  received  the  inheritance  for  the  use  of  the 
Church,  1  mean  two  things:  first,  that  he  received  it  for 
the  unfailing  advantage  of  his  elect,  whom  he  had  obtained 
a  right  to  form  into  a  Church  by  sanctifying  grace:  se- 
condly, that  he  received  it  for  the  benefit  of  all  who  would 
believe,  holding  it  thus  as  a  provision  for  a  whole  world  of 
moral  agents,  and  as  such  offering  the  benefit  of  it  to  all. 
In  both  senses  it  may  be  said,  the  Father  "  raised  him  from 

*  Mat.    23.    13.    John  13.    3.    and    1G.    15. 1  Col.  1.  15— IS. 

X  Isaiah.   53.  12.  Rom.  14,   9  Heb.  12.  2. *  Joim  17.  2.  Acts 

5.  3i. jl  Heb.  1.14. 


APPEXDIX.  433 

the  dead  and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly 
places,   far  above  all   principality,  and  power,  and  might, 
and  dominion,  and  every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in 
this  world  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come,  and — put  all 
things  under  his  feet,  and  gave   him  to  be  Head  over  all 
things  to  the  Church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of 
him  that  fill  eth  all  in  a//*."     In  both  senses  I  wish  to  be 
understood    when  I    say,  if  he  vanquished  the  powers  of 
darkness,  it  was  not  in  a  separate  warfare,  but  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Church,  and  for  her  use  :  if  he  took  possession  of 
heaven,  it  was   "  to   prepare  a  place  for"   his   followers-]-. 
Even  his  personal  splendours  are  only  the  royal  robes  ap- 
pended to  his  regal  office,  which  he  holds  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Church.     But  a  part  of  the  general  estate  was  received, 
not  for  the  Church  as  such,  that  is,  not  to  be  given  in  re- 
wards to  believers,   and  offered  as  such  to  men,  but  to  be 
bestowed  on  the  race  at  large  in  sovereign  gifts  fitted  to  a 
state  of  probation. 

In  proceeding  to  the  particular  parts  of  the  inheritance, 
I  shall  present  them  in  two  general  divisions  ;  those  which 
respect  the  elect  distinctively,  and  those  which  relate  in- 
discriminately to  a  world  of  moral  agents. 

(1.)  The  elect  themselves  as  a  redeemed  kingdom,  and 
the  regenerating  influence  by  which  they  are  constituted  a 
holy  seed,  and  the  sanctifying  influence  and  inheritance  by 
which  they  are  graciously  rewarded,  all  belong  to  the  in- 
heritance and  reward  of  Christ. 

The  elect  themselves,  as  a  holy  seed  and  redeemed  king- 
dom, belong  to  his  inheritance.  "  Thou  spokest  in  vision 
to  thy  Holy  One,  and  saidst,  I  have  laid  help  upon  One  that 
is  mighty,  I  have  exalted  One  chosen  out  of  the  people. — 
He  shall  cry  unto  use,  Thou  art  my  Father  ;  [that  is,  he 
shall  be  my  Son.] — Also  I  will  make  him  my  First-born, 
[my  Heir,]  higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth. — His  seed 
also  will  I  make  to  endure  for  ever,  and  his  throne  as  the 
days  of  heaven."  "  I  shall  give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine 
inheritance  J."  The  elect  belong  to  his  reward.  "When 
thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his 
seed,  he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord 
shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his 
soul  and  shall  be  satisfied.  By  his  knowledge  shall  my 
righteous  Servant  justify  many,  for  he  shall  bear  their  ini- 
quities."    "  We,  brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of 

*  Eph.  1.   20—23. -f  [John    14.  k %  Ps.  2.  8.  &  89.  3—37. 

2  O 


434  APPENDIX. 

promise*."  The  regenerating-  influence  by  which  they  are 
constituted  a  holy  seed,  belongs  to  his  reward.  Hence  they 
are  said  to  be  created  and  begotten  "in  Christ,"  and 
to  be  regenerated  for  his  sake.  God  has  "  saved  us  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Savioury."  Indeed  the  Heir  himself,  as  an  essential  right, 
received  uncontrolled  power  to  raise  them  from  the  death  of 
sin.  "  As  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quick- 
eneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will. 
— For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  himseifj."  Both  the  influence  by 
which  they  are  regenerated,  and  the  sanctifying  influence 
by  which  they  are  graciously  rewarded,  belong  to  his  pro- 
mised recompense.  What  else  can  be  meant  by  our  being 
"  chosen — in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that 
we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  him  in  love''1  ? 
God  has  "  saved  us  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not 
according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose 
and  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began  ;"  that  is,  made  over  to  Christ  for  us§.  We 
are  distinctly  taught  that  he  obtained  their  complete  sanc- 
tiflcation  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  "  unto  death."  He 
"  loved  the  Church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might 
sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the 
word  ;  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church, 
not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but  that  it 
should  be  holy  and  without  blemish."  "  Who  gave  himself 
for  our  sins  that  he  might  deliver  us  from  this  present  evil 
world."  "  Who  gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might  redeem 
us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar 
people  zealous  of  good  works."  "  For  their  sakes  I  sanc- 
tify myself,  [devote  myself  to  die,]  that  they  also  might  be 
sanctified  through  the  truth||."  The  inheritance  also,  which 
they  receive  as  a  gracious  recompense,  is  a  part  of  his  pro- 
mised reward.  What  else  can  be  meant  by  the  eternal  elec- 
tion of  men  in  him  to  the  inheritance  ?  "  Blessed  be  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  blessed 
us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ, 
according  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  ;—  having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adop- 
tion of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  himself."     "  Paul,— an 

•  Isai.  53.  10,  11.  Gal.  4.  28. 1  1  Cor.  4.  15.  2  Cor.  5.  17.  Epl>. 

2   10.     Tit.  3.  5,  6. 1  John  5.  21,   26. JEph.  1.  4.    2  Tim.  1 

J  9. 1|  John  17.  19.  Gal.  1.  4.  Eph.  5.  25-27.  Tit.  2.  14. 


APPENDIX.  435 

apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  faith  of  God's  elect, 
— in  hope  of  eternal  life  which  God  that  cannot  lie  pro- 
mised before  the  world  began.'''  Promised  to  whom  ?  To 
Christ  unquestionably*. 

(2.)  Passing-  by  the  special  notices  of  the  elect,  I  say  in 
general,  that  all  the  positive  good,  (including  expressly  sanc- 
tification  and  eternal  life,)  which  is  offered  and  promised  to 
men  on  the  condition  of  their  faith,  (constituting  a  com- 
plete provision  for  a  world  of  moral  agents,)  and  actually 
bestowed  on  believers  in  gracious  rewards,  is  comprehended 
in  the  inheritance  of  Christ. 

The  general  administration  of  the  Spirit,  for  the  sancti- 
fication  of  all  who  will  believe,  belongs  both  to  his  inheri- 
tance and  reward.  First,  it  belongs  to  his  inheritance. 
"  When  he  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come, — he  shall  not  speak 
of  himself,  [at  his  own  suggestion,]  but  whatsoever  lie  shall 
hear  that  shall  he  speak. — He  shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall 
receive  of  mine  and  shall  show  it  unto  you.  All  things  that 
the  Father  hath  are  mine  ;  therefore  said  I  that  he  shall 
take  of  mine  and  shall  show  it  unto  you."  The  grant  was 
made  to  him  as  the  beloved  Son  and  Heir.  "  God  giveth 
not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him  ;  the  Father  hveth  the 
Son  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  handf."  Second- 
ly, it  belongs  to  his  promised  reward.  "It  is  expedient 
for  you  that  I  go  away  ;  for  if  I  go  not  away  the  Comforter 
will  not  come  unto  you,  but  if  I  depart  I  will  send  him  un- 
to you."  This  gift  could  not  be  bestowed  till  Christ  had 
earned  his  reward.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given, 
because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified."  But  when  he 
"ascended  on  high,"  among  other  gifts  for  men  he  receiv- 
ed this,  "  that  the  Lord  God  might  dwell  among  them  ;" 
and  within  ten  days  he  sent  the  blessing  forth.  On  that 
occasion  Peter  was  instructed  to  make  the  following  ex- 
planation :  "  Being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted, 
and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and 
hearj."  Accordingly  the  sanctifi cation  offered  and  grant- 
ed to  men,  is  every  where  ascribed  to  the  essential  influence 
of  Christ.  "  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus 
hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."  "  This 
is  he  that  came  by  water  and  blood."  "  The  grace  of  God 
which  is  given  you  by  Jesus  Christ."     "  Filled  with  the 


*  Eph.  1.  3—5.  Tit.  1.  1,  2. 1  John  3.  34,  35.  k  16.  13—15.- 

t  Ps.  68.  18.  John  7.  39.  &  16.  7.  Acts.  2.  33. 


436  APPENDIX. 

fruits  of  righteousness  which  are  by  Jesus  Christ."  We 
are  said  to  be  sanctified,  built  up,  and  established  "  in 
Christ,"  and  to  conquer  in  and  through  him.  We  are  said 
to  be  "  dead  with"  him,  to  be  "  quickened  together  with 
him,"  to  be  "risen  with  him,"  "  that  the  life — of  Jesus 
might  be  made  manifest  in  our  body."  We  are  said  to 
"  know — the  power  of  his  resurrection,"  to  be  "  dead  to 
the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ,  that  we  should  be  married 
to  another,  even  to  him  who  is  raised  from  the  dead,  that 
we  should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God,"  and  to  be  "  alive 
unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Christ  is  set 
forth  as  the  all  in  all  in  the  cure  of  our  spiritual  maladies, 
and  in  the  support  of  our  spiritual  life  ;  as  being  not  merely 
the  channel  through  which  the  streams  flow,  but  the  source 
itself.  The  cures  which  he  wrought  in  the  days  of  his  flesh 
exhibit  him,  not  as  an  under  physician  dealing  out  the  medi- 
cines of  another,  but  as  the  healing  fountain.  Is  no  other 
idea  to  be  awakened  in  our  minds  by  all  those  affecting  re- 
presentations of  him  as  the  olive-tree  constantly  shedding 
its  oil  to  feed  the  lamps,  as  the  good  olive  and  vine  nourish- 
ing the  branches,  as  "  the  Head  by  which  all  the  body,  by 
joints  and  bands  having  nourishment  ministered  and  knit 
together,  increaseth  with  the  increase  of  God,"  but  that  he 
is  the  mere  Agent  to  dispense  supplies  which  might  have 
come  through  another  hand  ?  He  is  a  "  quickening  Spirit," 
not  merely  as  King,  but  as  "the  last  Adam  :''  and  sancti- 
fication  is  Christ  within  us,  not  merely  his  image,  but  his 
life :  "  I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  "  Know 
ye  not — that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you  except  ye  be  repro- 
bates ?"  "  If  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because 
of  sin,  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness." 
Christ  is  "the  Author  and  Finisher  of  our  faith;"  and  it 
is  he  who  pronounces,  "  Behold  I  make  all  things  new*." 

In  like  manner  that  eternal  life  or  inheritance  which  he 
offers  to  a  world  of  moral  agents,  and  bestows  on  believers 
as  a  gracious  reward,  belongs  to  his  own  inheritance.  We 
inherit  through  him.  "  In  whom  also  we  have  obtained  an 
inheritance."  "  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God."     "  When  the  fulness  of 

*  Zech  4.  2—14.  John  15.  1—6.  Rom.  6.  2 — 11.  and  7.  4.  and  S. 
2,  10,  37.  and  11.  17.  and  12.  5.  1  Cor.  1.  2,  4.  and  6.  15.  and  12. 
12—27.  and  15.  45,  57.  2  Cor.  1.  21.  and  2.  14.  and  4.  10,  11.  and 
13.  5.  Gal.  2.  20.  Eph.  2.  20—22.  and  4.  15,  16.  and  5.  30.  Phil. 
1.  11.  and  3.  10.  Col.  2.  7,  11—13,  19.  Heb.  12.  2.  1  John  5.  6. 
Rev.  21.  5. 


APPENDIX.  437 

time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son  made  of  a  woman, 
made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the 
law j  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons.  Aud  be- 
cause ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son 
into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba  Father.  Wherefore  thou 
art  no  more  a  servant  but  a  son  ;  and  if  a  son,  then  an  heir 
of  God  through  Christ."  The  last  clause  shows  what  is 
always  meant  by  a  son  of  God.  In  Christ  as  the  Second 
Adam,  and  not  merely  by  his  Kingly  power,  the  believing 
dead  will  be  raised  to  immortal  life.  "  For  since  by  man, 
[by  the  sin  of  one  man,]  came  death,  by  man,  [by  the  right- 
eousness of  one  man,]  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  For  as  in  Adam  ail  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall 
all  be  made  alive*."  Thus  he  who  is  the  Alpha,  is  the 
Omega  also  of  our  salvation. 

Accordingly  all  the  promises  which  are  offered  to  the 
world  and  applied  to  believers,  expressly  including  those  of 
the  Spirit  and  of  the  inheritance,  were  really  made  to  Christ, 
and  reach  us  as  the  oil  on  Aaron's  head  did  the  skirts  of  his 
garments.  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law, — that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come 
on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might 
receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith,  [that  is, 
as  a  reward.] — Nov/  to  Abraham  and  his  Seed  were  the  pro- 
mises, [all  the  promises,]  made.  He  saith  not,  And  to 
seeds,  as  of  many,  but  as  of  One,  And  to  thy  Seed,  which 
is  Christ.  And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  that  was 
confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  [this  shows  what  is 
meant  by  promises  made  in  Christ,]  the  law — cannot  dis- 
annul.— For  if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more 
of  promise ;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promise. 
Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added  because  of 
transgressions,  till  the  Seed  should  come  to  whom  the  pro- 
mise [of  the  whole  inheritance]  was  made. — The  Scripture 
hath  concluded  all  under  sin,  that  the  promise  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ  might  be  given  to  them  that  believe.  [This 
shows  what  is  meant  by  a  promise  inherited  by  faith  in 
the  Redeemer.] — The  law  is  our  school-master  to  bring  us 
unto  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith.  But  after 
that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school-master, 
[no  longer  minors  incapable  of  the  inheritance  conferred  in 
justification  ;]  for  ye  are  all  the  children,  [heirs,]  of  God 
by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus. — And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are 

*  John  1.  12.     1  Cor.  15.  21,  22.     Gal.  4.  4—7.     Eph.  1.  11. 
20  2 


43o  APPENDIX. 

ye  Abraham's  seed,  [as  being  the  seed  of  Abraham's  greater 
isorif]  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.  Now  I  say  that 
the  heir,  as  long  as  he  is  a  child,  difrereth  nothing  from  a 
servant,  though  he  be  lord  of  all."  Hence  the  promise  of 
inheritance,  and  all  other  promises,  are  in  Christ.  "  The 
mystery  of  Christ — is  now  revealed, — that  the  Gentiles 
-should  be  fellow  heirs  [with  the  Jews,] — and  partakers  of 
Ms  promise  in  Christ."  "The  promise  of  life  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus."  "  For  all  the  promises  of  God  in  him 
are  yea,  and  in  him  amen*." 

Now  the  promises  made  to  Christ,  either  in  the  covenant 
of  redemption  or  in  the  revelation  to  the  Church,  implied 
nothing  less  than  that  the  things  promised  were  to  be  the 
reward  of  his  work  on  earth,  and  what  his  services  might 
fairly  claim.  I  can  conceive  of  but  two  other  grounds  on 
which  they  can  be  supposed  to  have  been  made  to  him. 
First,  a  guardian  may  receive  promises  that  his  wards  shall 
be  endowed,  not  for  his  sake  but  their  own.  Secondly,  a 
parent  may  be  made  acquainted  with  a  similar  design  respect- 
ing his  children,  and  though  the  estate  is  to  be  conferred  for 
their  conduct  alone,  yet  the  information  may  be  given  as  a 
real  reword  to  him.  Neither  of  these  cases  illustrates  the 
subject.  As  to  the  former,  if  the  promises  were  not  intend- 
ed as  a  reward  to  Christ,  but  only  deposited  with  him  as 
the  Guardian  of  his  people,  why  were  they  made  to  him  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  worldf  ?  The  Church  were  not 
there  to  enjoy  the  pledge,  and  when  the  intelligence  reaches 
them,  it  makes  them  no  more  assured  than  the  simple  pur- 
pose of  the  Father  would  have  done.  As  to  the  latter,  if 
the  promises  were  intended  as  a  reward  to  Christ,  the  re- 
compense could  not  lie  in  the  pleasure  of  receiving  new  in- 
formation. The  Second  Person  in  the  Trinity  needed  not 
to  be  informed.  Indeed  what  can  be  understood  by  a  pro- 
mise in  the  divine  cabinet  ?  Not  a  declaration  in  words, 
and  yet  something  more  than  a  mere  design.  It  was  a  pur- 
pose connected  with  a  bond ;  a  bond  not  arising  out  of  the 
intention  itself,  as  out  of  the  verbal  promise  of  a  man,  but 
from  the  very  service  which  the  Son  was  to  render.  It 
was  a  mere  recognition  of  the  claim  which  his  work  on 
earth  would  create,  and  an  unchangeable  resolution  to  satisfy 
it ;  a  claim  not  originally  binding  on  the  Father,  but  growing 

*  2  Cor.  1.  20.  Gal.  3.  13—29.  and  4,  1.  Epb.  3.  4—6.  2  Tim.  1.  1. 

1  We  have  seen  that  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of  redemption 
were  not  limited  to  the  elect,  but  extended  to  a  world  of  moral  agents, 
securing  to  Christthe  salvation  of  all  who  would  believe. 


APPJESDiX.  439 

out  of  the  acceptance  of  the  Son's  submission.  And  as  to 
the  promises  which  appear  in  the  public  revelation,  why 
should  they  be  made  to  Christ  at  all,  and  not  to  the  Church 
directly,  if  they  were  not  intended  to  announce  to  the  world 
that  the  things  promised  come  to  us  as  his  reward  ? 

On  what  other  ground  can  you  account  for  the  abso- 
lute form  of  the  promises,  ensuring-  to  every  believer  con- 
tinued sanetihxation  and  eternal  life  ?  Is  it  because  those 
believers  were  elected  ?  But  the  same  absolute  covenant  is 
tendered  to  the  world  at  large.  Every  man,  elect  or  non- 
elect,  is  assured  that  if  he  will  once  believe,  he  shall  be 
kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation. 
Now  why  is  this  ?  Why  if  Christ  is  not  the  ground  of  the 
promises,  and  if  it  is  not  secured  to  him,  without  reference 
to  election,  that  no  member  shall  ever  be  torn  from  his 
bleeding  side, — that  no  moral  agent  who  will  once  believe 
in  him  shall  ever  perish  ?  Why,  unless  it  has  been  promised 
of  him  as  the  "First-bom"  and  Heir,  "If  his  children 
forsake  my  law  and  walk  not  in  my  judgments, — then  will 
I  visit  their  transgression  with  the  rod  and  their  iniquity 
with  stripes  ;  nevertheless  my  loving  kindness  will  1  not 
utterly  take  from  him,  nor  suffer  my  faithfulness  to  fail*"  ? 
If  after  removing  our  guilt,  Christ  has  left  us  exactly  where 
Adam  stood  the  moment  he  was  created, — to  transact  di- 
rectly with  God,  and  receive  only  what  we  can  earn ;  why 
this  "everlasting  consolationf  "  to  us  more  than  to  Adam  ? 
Mere  freedom  from  guilt  in  the  Gospel  sense,  creates  no 
more  necessity  that  men  should  be  kept  from  falling  away, 
than  original  innocence  did.  Whence  then  this  "better 
covenant, — established  upon  better  promises1'  ?  these  "  ex- 
ceeding great  and  precious  promises"  by  which  we  become 
"partakers  of  the  divine  nature,"  and  are  assured  of  "all 
things  that  pertain  unto  life  and  godliness;^'  ?  If  the  in- 
fluence of  Christ  ends  with  pardon,  and  believers  stand  be- 
fore God  in  the  same  relation  that  Adam  did,  why  this 
pledge  against  apostacy  ?  Do  you  say  that  Christ  pro- 
cured their  eternal  pardon  ?  What,  without  procuring  their 
sanctifi cation  ?  We  have  seen  that  he  cculd  not  even 
render  their  pardon  possible  but  on  the  supposition  of  their 
being  holy.  If  then  he  did  not  obtain  their  sanctifi  cation, 
he  could  not  obtain  absolute  pardon  for  them  a  moment,  and 
created  no  reason  why  God  should  issue  absolute  promises 
either  of  sanctification  or  eternal  life.     Why  then  were  they 

*  Ps.  89.  27—33. t2  Thes.  2.  16. -±  Heb.  8.  6.  2  Pet.  1.  3,  4. 


44  0  APPENDIX. 

issued  ?  We  have  been  accustomed  to  suppose  that  it  was 
because  the  salvation  of  believers  was  made  over  to  Christ 
as  his  reward.  No  such  thing-  upon  this  plan,  and  we  are 
left  to  account  for  this  wonderful  change  in  the  treatment 
of  spotless  creatures  without  any  reasons  drawn  from  a 
Mediator.  Tell  me  then  in  what  sense  he  is  "  the  Media- 
tor" of  this  "  better  covenant, — established  upon  better 
promises*"  ?  If  he  did  nothing  but  render  sanctification 
and  pardon  consistent  with  the  honour  of  the  law,  and  had 
no  influence  in  obtaining  these  absolute  promises,  how  is 
he  the  Mediator  of  a  better  covenant  than  the  conditional 
one  at  Sinai  ?  for  this  is  the  thing-  asserted.  How  in  any 
other  sense  than  as  the  mere  Promulgator  ?  The  argu- 
ment of  the  apostle  is,  that  Christ  has  "  obtained  a  more 
excellent  ministry"  than  the  Levitical  priests,  "  by  how 
much  also  he  is  the  Mediator  of  a  better  covenant"  than 
that  at  Sinai.  The  superiority  of  the  covenant  is  explain- 
ed to  consist  in  its  absolute  form,  ensuring  both  sanctinca- 
tion  and  eternal  life.  The  Sinai  covenant,  to  which  were 
appended  all  the  bloody  sacrifices,  certainly  secured  the 
pardon  of  every  one  who  would  believe,  and  secured  it 
through  the  atonement  of  a  Saviour  to  come.  If  in  this 
new  and  absolute  covenant  the  Mediator  has  no  higher  in- 
fluence, that  is,  no  influence  to  make  the  covenant  absolute, 
his  "  more  excellent  ministry"  turns  out  to  be  the  mere 
promulgation  of  "  better  promises'1  which  he  had  no  hand 
in  procuring.  And  then  if  an  angel  had  been  sent  to  an- 
nounce these  absolute  promises,  (allowing  any  reason  for 
their  being  made,)  he  would  in  as  high  a  sense  have  exer- 
cised this  "more  excellent  ministry,"  and  been  "the  medi- 
ator" of  every  thing  in  this  "better  covenant"  which  dis- 
tinguished it  from  that  at  Sinai. 

Now  if  all  the  positive  good  ever  promised  to  the  world 
on  the  condition  of  their  faith,  was  really  measured  out  to 
Christ  as  his  reward,  and  expressly  for  the  use  of  those 
who  would  believe,  then  it  comes  to  them  because  it  was 
first  given  to  him .  And  this  is  his  own  account  of  the  mat- 
ter. "  The  glory  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  them, 
that  they  all  may  be  one  as  we  are ;  /  in  them  and  thou  in 
me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one,  and  that  the 
world  may  know — that  thou  hast  loved  them  as  thou  hast 
loved  me\"  The  whole  amount  is  this  :  he  earned  the  in- 
heritance, and  his  seed  share  it  with  him.     By  whatever 

*  Heb.  8.  6. 1  John  17.  22—26. 


APPENDIX.  441 

means  it  happens,  all  things  are  actually  made  over  to  them 
by  covenant.  Now  on  what  ground  do  they  claim  ?  and 
are  not  the  "all  things"  which  are  given  to  them  the  iden- 
tical "all  things"  which  were  made  over  to  the  universal 
"Heir"  ?  If  so,  how  came  they  in  possession  of  the  very 
things  which  were  given  to  Christ  ?  Are  there  conflicting 
claims  ?  or  do  they  inherit  under  him  ?  Let  the  word  of 
God  decide.  "All  things  are  yours  :  whether  Paul,  or 
Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or  the  world,  or  life,  or  death,  orthings 
present,  or  things  to  come,  all  are  yours,  and  ye  are 
Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's*."  Hence  the  seed  "inhe- 
rit all  thingsf."  In  particular  they  inherit  the  promises 
of  eternal  life.  "Followers  of  them  who  through  faith  and 
patience  inherit  the  promises.  For  when  God  made  pro- 
mise to  Abraham, — he  swore  by  himself  : — wherein  God, 
willing  more  abundantly  to  show  unto  the  heirs  of  promise 
the  immutability  of  his  counsel,  confirmed  it  by  an  oath  : — 
which  hope — entereth  into  that  within  the  vail,  [takes  hold 
of  heaven,]  whither  the  Forerunner  is  for  us  entered, 
even  Jesus,  made  a  High  Priest  forever  J."  That  is, 
he  has  entered  upon  the  inheritance  as  our  Forerunner, 
to  take  possession  of  it  for  our  use,  and  by  his  priestly  in- 
tercession to  obtain  the  acknowledgment  of  our  title  to  it 
as  joint  heirs  :  and  the  hope  which  follows  him  thither, 
is  grounded  on  the  promise  of  inheritance  made  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  Seed,  which  Seed  was  Christ.  As  the  ancient 
Church  inherited  from  Abraham  the  land  of  Canaan§,  the 
type  of  heavenj|,  so  we  "  inherit"  from  Christ  the  "  better 
country,"  as  "heirs  together  of  the  grace  of  life,"  "heirs 
according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life^[,"  and  are  said  to 
have  an  "  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,"  and  to 
reign  "with"  him,  and  even  to  be  "partakers  q/Christ**." 
Hence  in  that  great  description  of  the  inheritance  of 
the  "Son"  and  "Heir  of  all  things,"  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Hebrews,  we  read  of  the  "  heirs  ;"  the  meaning  of  which 
is  found  in  this,  "  If  children,  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God  and 
joint  heirs  ivith  Christ-ff"  At  one  time  he  is  the  Parent 
from  whom  the  seed  inherit,  at  another  time,  "the  First- 
born among  many  brethren," — really  the  "  Heir,"  but  ad- 
mitting his  younger  brethren  to  share  with  him.     "Whom 

*  1  Cor.  3.  21—23. 1  Rev.  21. 7. +  Heb.  6. 12— 20. 5  Gen. 

15.  7.     Ps.  37.  29,  34.  and  105.  11. 1|  Isai.  60.  21. 1  Mat.   19. 

29.  and  25.  34.     Mar.    10.   17.     Tit.  3.  7.     1  Pet.  3.  7. **  Eph. 

5.  5.     Heb.  3.  14.     Rev.  3.  21.  and.  20.  4,  6. tt  Rom.  8.  14—17. 

Heb.  1.  14, 


442  APPENDIX. 

he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  First-born 
among  many  brethren*." 

It  might  be  expected  therefore  that  every  thing  would  be 
ascribed  to  his  essential  influence.  Andso  we  find  it.  "  In" 
and  "  through  him  we — have — access — unto  the  Father," — 
"boldness  and  access  with  contidence.,,  We  are  "com- 
plete in  him,"  "  perfect  in  Christ,"  "approved  in  Christ," 
"accepted  in  the  Beloved,''''  (that  is,  because  lie  is  be- 
loved',) and  our  acceptableness  is  called  "  a  sweet  savour  of 
Christ,"  he  and  not  our  works  being  the  acceptable  incense. 
Even  common  blessings  come  to  us  through  him  ;  and  to 
rejoice  in  them  religiously,  is  to  rejoice  in  Christ.  "  That 
your  rejoicing  may  be  more  abundant  in  Jesus  Christ  for 
me  by  my  coming  to  you  again."  Those  salutations  at 
the  beginning  and  end  of  the  Epistles,  "  The  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you,"  "  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
be  with  thy  spirit,"  "Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace  from 
God  our  Father  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;"  were 
breathings  of  desire  for  all  good  on  those  addressed,  and  ac- 
knowledgments that  all  good  came  through  the  Redeemer. 
Hence  that  confidence  of  the  apostle,  "My  God  shall  supply 
all  your  need — by  Christ  Jesus  ;'"  and  that  devout  and  com- 
prehensive acknowledgment,  "To  us  there  is  but  one  God, 
the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him  ;  and  one 
Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we 

BY  KIMf." 

And  now  is  it  too  much  to  say  of  the  scheme  against 
which  these  arguments  are  arrayed,  that  it  takes  away  one 
half  of  a  Saviour  and  one  half  of  his  praise  ?  Nor  is  it  the 
least  important  part  that  it  filches  from  us,  so  far  as  our 
comfort  and  gratitude  to  Christ  are  concerned.  To  fill  the 
eye  with  him  as  the  "  Heir  of  all  things,"  "the  First-born 
among  many  brethren,"  who  has  taken  possession  of  the 
inheritance  in  our  name,  to  manage  it  as  our  Guardian,  and 
to  reserve  it  for  us  against  our  arrival ;  to  view  every  comfort, 
every  morsel  of  daily  food,  as  purchased  by  him,  and  as  be- 
longing to  the  mediatorial  esta'e ;  is  one  of  the  sweetest  and 
sublimest  contemplations  that  ever  occupied  the  Christian 
mind.  To  know  that  we  are  indebted  to  him  for  all  things, 
is  the  richest  ingredient  in  prosperity,  and  the  brightest 
gem  in  the  immortal  crown.     Do  you  tell  me  that  it  is  no 

*  Rom.  8-  29. 1  Rom.  16.  20.      1  Cor.  8.  6.     2  Cor.  2.  15.  with 

Eph.  5.  2  and  Phil.  4.  18.  Eph.  1.  6.  and  2.  13.  and  3.  12.  Phil.  1. 
26.  and  4.  19.     Col.  1.  28.  and  2.  10.     2  Pet.  1.  2—4. 


APPENDIX.  443 

matter  whether  blessings  come  through  Christ  or  directly 
from  the  Father,  as  upon  either  plan  they  are  equally  se- 
cure ?  This  is  precisely  the  Socinian  plea.  The  worst 
evil  in  the  Unitarian  heresy  is  its  tendency  to  lower  down 
the  influence  of  Christ  in  the  business  of  man's  salvation, 
and  to  send  a  fallen  race  immediately  to  God.  Exactly  in 
proportion  as  Christ  is  excluded,  our  faith,  dependance, 
gratitude,  and  all  our  religion  is  changed.  If  Socinianism 
changes  it  entirely,  this  errour  changes  it  in  part.  Give 
me  a  religion  which  yields  to  Christ  all  his  influence  and 
all  his  honours, — which  in  every  part  of  salvation  makes  him 
our  ALL  in  ALL, 


ERRATA. 


Page  26,  line  1?  from  top :  for  a  personal  sinner  read  personally  a  sinner. 

86,  top  line  :  insert  t  after  i. 

• 162,  Note,  line  2  from  top  :  insert  t  after  no. 

204,  Note,  line  2  from  bottom  :  insert  a  at  the  end  of  the  line. 

210,  top  line  :  for  this  read  Aw. 

232,  line  7  from  bottom  :  for  a  mere  read  an. 

279,  line  16  from  top  :  for  hearts'1  lust  read  heart's  lust. 

290,  line  11  from  top  :  strike  out  sole. 

300,  line  13  from  bottom :  for  come  read  came. 

334.     A  small  inaccuracy  crept  into  this  page  between  the  2d  and 

10th  line  from  the  top.  The  reader  is  desired  to  consider  the 
passage  as  standing  thus  :  But  the  possibility  of  the  action  un- 
der consideration,  did  not  depend  on  the  power  of  motives  to 
influence  the  temper  which  that  sinner  actually  possessed. 
The  temper  itself  was  not  necessary.  It  was  certain,  but  the 
certainty  was  not  that  plvysical  necessity  which  rendered  a 
different  issue  naturally  impossible.  Had  Judas  felt  as  he 
ought,  he  would  have  fallen  under  the  control  of  motives  in 
a  way  different  from  what  was  ever  calculated  in  heaven. 
Had  he  done  as  he  ought,  an  event  would  have  taken  place 
which  was  never  foreseen.  And  had  he  felt  and  done  as  he 
ought  without  the  influence  which  God  controlled,  (and  his 
obligations  were  independent  of  that,)  an  event  would  have 
taken  place.  &r. 


"OH.  I 

■9 


